Roeland M.J. Meyer
rmeyer at mhsc.com
Tue Dec 23 05:43:22 GMT 1997
At 18:26 22-12-97 -0800, Bill Campbell wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 23, 1997 at 05:31:19AM +1100, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>If all you want is printing, why not use the Windows LPR facility and cut
>>out the Samba layer altogether? If you have Win95 machines then there is a
>>free/shareware version of the LPR facility, WinNT40ws has this built-in but
>>using it is counter-intuitive.
>Not at all. Microsoft systems have a difficult walking and chewing
>gum at the same time so anything that minimizes the load on them is
>probably a win (have you ever been using a Win95 machine when somebody
>runs a large PostScript(tm) file through your printer :-)?
>We run all printing through our Unix systems, generally with all
>spooling for a particular printer going through one Unix box since I
>generally don't trust the printer vendor's network code to handle
>input from multiple sources in a clean manner. Typically we spool
>through the Unix box that's physically closest to the printer(s)
>although with network printers that's not technically necessary.
I agree with the spooling issue, but since I run only WinNTws it is not so
much a problem here. I know Win95 is WfW on steroids, with all the warts.
However, since you're spooling to a Unix box anyway, why not LPR? If one is
using a lot of shares anyway then I see Samba as a legitimate option, but,
in this case, the only reason for Samba's existance is to provide a printer
connection then LPR is better suited, and already extant anyway.
Roeland M.J. Meyer, ISOC (InterNIC RM993)
e-mail: mailto:rmeyer at mhsc.com
Personalweb pages: http://www.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com/
"The FBI doesn't want to read encrypted documents,
they want to read YOUR encrypted documents."
More information about the samba