[sf-lug] (forw) Re: Xsane can't see an HP Laserjet 1536dnf MFP scanner / printer

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Bobbie Sellers (bliss-sf4ever at dslextreme.com):

>     But actually the scanner works very well on most stuff.

I'm sure it does, and certainly didn't wish to imply otherwise.

To reiterate, what I said was that the (IMO, unwise) acquisition of that
multifunction device meant that the only way you can get SANE scanning
working with it is by retrofitting a binary-only proprietary backend for
SANE that you are obliged to download separately, post-OS-instaall, from
Avasys.

Speaking _generally_, I made the point that proprietary, binary-only
drivers have a strong tendency to be buggy and brittle (and that almost
all drivers _from_ manufacturers are binary-only and proprietary).  Of
course, nothing about binary-only automatically guarantees buggy &
brittle, but over the long term it's almost guaranteed, because they
don't keep up with changes in the operating system.

For example, during the 1990s there was a market for low-end 'winmodems'
for which manufacturers released binary-only i386-only kernel drivers.
In a few cases, by the way, presaging the same situation later arising
with printers, the 'winmodems' were deliberately missing some absolutely
necessary circuitry (to knock a few cents off the manufacturing cost), 
with that functionlity then provided via hardware-emulation inside
'engine' software provided with the driver.  In other cases, the full
circuitry was present but the modem could be communicated with using
only secret-sauce proprietary drivers.

Proponents of winmodems kept saying, hey, what's the problem?  We have
drivers.  And then a funny thing happened:  The Linux kernel in
prevailing distributions shifted from 2.2.x to 2.4.x, and _all_ of those
drivers broke, because they were specific to the old kernel API and
nobody outside some uncaring hardware companies even had access to the
source code.

But hey, we have drivers.  What's the problem?  ;->



>     Inkjets may be hard on ink but of the color printing solutions I have
> seen over the years since the 1980s thru the C+64, the Amiga, and Linux
> it was the most reasonably priced for the work I occasionally send its
> way.

I can see _maybe_ the merit of having an inkjet printer sitting off to
the side for once-in-a-blue-moon colour printing, with a laser or LED
printer for everything but the very rare exceptions. 

If your colour printing is _not_ rare, then I submit that you need
something a whole lot better than inkjet.

But, anyway, usually when I hear that 'Yeah, inkjet supplies are
heinously expensive but I use it only occasionally', when I visit it
turns out that it's the only printer present, which means the speaker
was kidding himself/herself (or me, maybe ;->  ). 

>     I started with Dot-Matrix, then HP-Inkjet, Canon and finally the Epson
> and I knew about the need to download drivers when I bought it.  I knew
> because I had done my homework on that front.

Funny thing, when my now-deceased Mom had me help her buy computing
equipment including a printer, she bought an Epson Stylus inkjet over my
strong objections.  I pointed out that the supplies would be
super-expensive, and she said she'd be using it only 'occasionally'.  
I replied that I'd believe that if she also bought a cheap B&W laser
or LED printer for predominant use, but couldn't help noticing that she
wasn't doing so.

So, she ignored my objections, and the Epson cost her a big pile of
money on an ongoing basis for cartridges. 

One of the things that I regarded as particularly cheeky:  You would
supply the thing with both colour (particularly expensive) and B&W
(not so expensive) ink cartridges, and you would then attempt to print
B&W on (say) Web page -- and you found that you could _not_ do B&W if the
thing being printed was colour.  It sucked ink from the more-expensive 
cartridges, and you had no ability to prevent that (short of re-editing
Web pages' HTML to make them be B&W, I guess).  

Even more cheeky:  If _any_ of the cartridges ran low, e.g., the colour
ones, the printer refused to print anything, e.g., it would refuse to
print a B&W file if the colour cartridges were low.

Me, if I'd owned that damned thing, I'd have sold it or given it away in
a heartbeat.


>>> Never a disk with Linux drivers have I seen for printers,
>>> plenty for Windows and MacOS.

>> That is _so very much_ the wrong thing to wish for.
> 
> Did I say I wished for it.  Disks full of software get mislaid
> and not having to dig for it is a benefit. 

When was the last time you had to 'dig for' a package you wanted to
install from a distribution's package repos?  'Disks full of software'
sounds like something from last century.


 I had software from two separate publishers for
> the machines
> I used with the Amiga.  Where is it now and do I care?  Not much since paper
> newsletters are seldom done for users groups any longer.

Imagine AmigaOS were open source with an open source application
ecosystem.  You wouldn't have needed to 'dig for disks'.  Not even in
the 1980s/1990s.

> > proprietary driver set, but that's the usual situation.  Also, few
> > Linux distros wish to take on that headache, anyway.)
> 
>         Actually I have not had to download any drivers in quite some time.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

Obviously if you've already fetched the 'iscan' proprietary SANE backend
from Avasys, then you do not need to repeatedly re-download it.  I
cannot fathom what sort of misapprehension of my post might have lead
you to believe I suggested otherwise.

Of course, if SANE revises its application interface for communicating
with scanner back-ends, which is always a possibility as the world moves
on (see, for comparison, what happened to almost all winmodem drivers),
then you had better hope that Avasys bothers to up-rev and re-release
its 'iscan' proprietary SANE backend for your benefit.  And, in that
area, the record about maintained proprietary drivers for long-EOLed
hardware is... not good.


> Simple Scan and Xsane can be configured to use it and as I mentioned the
> biggest problem was getting the software to choose the right input.

I'm happy for you, on that.  But you seem to have ignored my point.


>     Yes all very ideal for people with adequate income.

Funny thing about that:  I used to say to my wife, Deirdre, when we were
going through long-term unemployment and she proposed something fiscally
unwise:  'We're too poor to be that stupid.'

Used hardware is a thing.  And, if you are careful and patient and
_bother to understand hardware_, you can avoid buying cheap junk.


>     But I reject the idea that the any of the printers were shoddy.

You have a right to your opinion.  But, as the late Sen. Moynihan
observe, you don't have a right to your own facts.  The facts I laid out
about your (and Christian's) multifunction devices are undeniable.  It
is my _opinion_ that they are clearly shoddy in at least fundamental
design, if not implementation.  And, I happen to have a very long
history of evaluating hardware for use on Linux, including doing so as
my profession.  

But you can (of course!) reject my opinions as you will.  You don't even
need to send me a figurative telegram when you do it.  ;->


>     As for replacing the Epson that is highly unlikely as
> I don't have the time left to worry about that.

Well, _now_ it's worth about $40.  (To somebody, not me. ;-> )

When new back around 2010, maybe you could have raised $200 for it.

And, in 2010, I'd not have been willing to spend even $40 for it,
because the cost of ink-cartridge supplies was totally unjustifiable.
The absurd scanner-driver situation is IMO merely bad icing on a very
bad cake.