Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.usenix:3272 comp.unix.bsd:11574 comp.org.sug:656 comp.os.386bsd.misc:52 Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix,comp.unix.bsd,comp.org.sug,comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!paperboy.osf.org!paperboy.osf.org!duke From: duke@osf.org (Duke Robillard) Subject: Re: How to vote on POSIX Printing In-Reply-To: peter@NeoSoft.com's message of Mon, 1 Mar 1993 11:50:46 GMT Message-ID: <DUKE.93Mar1134042@portal.osf.org> Lines: 31 Sender: news@osf.org (USENET News System) Organization: Open Software Foundation References: <C36JrI.E8K@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <C37Kwn.Hx5@sugar.neosoft.com> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 18:40:45 GMT Lines: 31 In article <C37Kwn.Hx5@sugar.neosoft.com> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: Actually, Palladium (based on the papers I FTP-ed on the subject) appears to be a derived at least in the design from Berkeley "lpr". I don't believe that's really true. It's a client-server system, so it has that in common with lpr, but it was all re-done from scratch. and only slightly improves its extensibility in the area of file formats and conversions. Well, not really. There is tremendously more flexibility in Palladium than in lpr. It's much, much bigger. It seems mainly of interest to very large networks that are more-or-less homogenous. If by "homogenous" you mean "POSIX-compliant" then I agree. It is not, as some have claimed, a general batch queue mechanism, That's true, it's very print specific. That's because it's an implementation of the ISO Print Standard. -- Bob Robillard, Technical Editor 1003.7.1, duke@cc.bellcore.com