Re: [Printing-user-general] Why has nothing changed?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Roger
Morgan) writes:
> 
> Two years ago, Eric Raymond posted his experiences with CUPS:
> http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cups-horror.html
> in which he points out, with specific examples, that CUPS is a nightmare
> to configure.

[...]

> What needs to change is some attitudes.
> 
> Most people who try to configure CUPS eventually come to Kurt Pfeifle's 
> page on CUPS Troubleshooting:
> 
>
http://www.linuxprinting.org/kpfeifle/LinuxKongress2002/Tutorial/VII.cups-help/
VII.cups-help.html

Let me put this into context please. My troubleshooting guide was written
in winter 2001/2002. ESR wrote his rant about his CUPS problems in February
2004.

My piece is not meant as a document that every user should read. It is a
document that should help users to collect that set of info that allows
volunteer supporters in Linuxprinting.org or CUPS.org forums to solve the
problems, or help admins and power users to arrive at a solution on their own. 

I think it does achieve exactly this purpose even to the current day.


> Almost everything on this page is WRONG. I don't mean technically wrong; 

:-)


> I mean
> that any piece of software that requires this advice, needs to be junked and
> rewritten.

You are asking to have a junk and re-write of a *lot* more software than just
CUPS then  :-)


[...]
 
> Example 2:
> "What was the exact command you gave to install it? Example: lpadmin -p
> 1st-printer -v socket://10.160.16.102 -L "Next to my desk" (Won't work: you
> used a dash in the printer name and it doesn't start with a character, 
> which at present is "illegal" with CUPS; your socket device URL will most 
> likely not work if you don't give a Port number; you forgot the "-E" 
> parameter..."
> 
> My response:
> The response is meaningless as written, which suggests that nobody has read
it
> seriously in a couple of years. Yes, I know we all make typos, this post
> probably has a few. But mistakes in troubleshooting advice which make the 
> piece of advice incomprehensible should be weeded out.

Excuse me?

What exactly is "meaningless as written"? What is incomprehensible? I seriously
don't understand what you mean; but I'm not a native speaker, and I've surely
"become blinkered in one work"... So please elaborate a little bit.


> Example 3:
> "Switch on the "debug" mode in the LogLevel directive for your CUPS daemon.
> Edit /etc/cups/cupsd.conf (....) Watch what is written to your CUPS error
log"
> 
> My response:
> Debug mode and a logfile are debugging tools for the developers. No user 
> should ever need to go near either of them. 

Agreed for "users". But some (power-)users *want* to get close to them, and
frequently admins and helpdesk workers *need* it for diagnosing packaging and
configuration problems (and the occasional bug that indeed appears in the
actual software as well).


> The CUPS software should be able to figure out whether or not bits are 
> getting as far as the printer. And it should be able to tell the user 
> which piece of the chain is missing (if that's what's wrong).

CUPS often does receive error messages from third party components; it can't
possibly know the meaning of all of these -- hence it logs them in files for a
human to look at and draw conclusions from. 


> Time to fork the CUPS project?

That's nonsense. You only fork a project if you can't influence it any more by
the usual means. And you only know this, if you actually have tried to
influence it in the first place. 

Have you? 

I don't think so, because I never came across your name in the CUPS.org
forums...)