All the distro suckers use CUPS because their distros use
CUPS and they are all distro lackeys.

But for those who still feel the need to use a 15th century
methodology (yes, printing is that fucking old), let me show
yous how a knowledgeable GNU/Linux user will print.

All GNU/Linux software should produce PostScript output for
printing. For example, we can instruct LibreOffice to "Print
to File" and we will obtain a PostScript document.

Next comes the printer. With GNU/Linux, all hardware should
be researched for compatibility before purchase, and regrading
printers, it should be compatible with HPLIP:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/hplip/files/

But don't build the entire HPLIP package. Only the hpijs,
i.e. the ghostscript driver, is necessary.

This can be done as follows:

../configure -enable-hpijs-install --enable-hpijs-only-build ...

make

Now that we have hpijs we can print any PostScript file thusly
(this example is for the HP110 Laserjet):

gs -q -dBATCH -dPARANOIDSAFER -dQUIET -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=ijs -sIjsServer=hpijs \
-sDeviceManufacturer="HEWLETT-PACKARD" -sDeviceModel="HP LaserJet" \
-dDEVICEWIDTHPOINTS=612 -dDEVICEHEIGHTPOINTS=792 -dDuplex=false -r600 \
-sIjsParams=Quality:Quality=0,Quality:ColorMode=0,Quality:MediaType=0,Quality:PenSet=0,PS:MediaPosition=7 \
-dIjsUseOutputFD -sOutputFile=/dev/usb/lp0 $1

THAT'S how it's done. Easy peasy.

Need a queue? Need something more?

Then just get off your fat ass and put your scripting skills
to work. With GNU/Linux anything is possible.

Say "kiss off" to that junk CUPS. Print like an expert
with ghostscript and hpijs.

Of course I threw my HP110 into the garbage pit some time ago
but I still have my scripts just in case I need to resurrect
an 800-year-old methodology.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Nux Vomica wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> https://sourceforge.net/projects/hplip/files/

HPLIP? Puuuuuuuuke!

<nuff said>

On Arch, with my Brother printer, it's a small AUR package and installs
in less than a minute.

--
Life being what it is, one dreams of revenge.
-- Paul Gauguin

Le 28-09-2024, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :

A lot of stupidities in a very short message. So let's take them one by
one.

> All the distro suckers

Once again you forgot you are one of the people you despise.

> use CUPS because their distros use CUPS and they are all distro
> lackeys.

I'm not because I don't need a printer.

> But for those who still feel the need to use a 15th century
> methodology (yes, printing is that fucking old),

Let say there are two things about that.

First, some say that Chinese invented print well before. In fact, what
they invented wasn't the same thing. They sort of invented something
like mobile characters, but they never really used them. So, either they
didn't used them enough to encounter the issues Gutenberg solved or they
couldn't solved the issues. Either way, it can be considered that, for
once, you are right.

Second, at the beginning of the printing, they took really a lot of care
on what they did. So the typology is that old, too.

> let me show yous how a knowledgeable GNU/Linux user will print.

There are two things, too.

First, you are not a knowledgeable GNU/Linux user. You are as far from
that as possible. It's impressive to see how few knowledge you were able
to acquire along all those years struggling to compile your kernel.

Second, this promise to be very funny.

> All GNU/Linux software should produce PostScript output for
> printing.

Why? You are shooting things without argument. Why is PostScript better
than everything else? For example, when you want to print a picture why
should it be converted to PostScript? If your software is a bad quality
one, the output will be shit whichever format you chose.

> For example, we can instruct LibreOffice

That's the funniest part of your message. Using LibreOffice to produce
high quality documents is a joke. It's as bad as Microsoft Word on a
typographical point of view. You can't expect to be serious about high
quality print if you take a bad example.

> Next comes the printer.

Agreed.

> With GNU/Linux, all hardware should be researched for compatibility
> before purchase, and regrading printers,

In fact, I almost forgot you are stuck in the past. Twenty years ago, it
was right. It's not anymore.

> it should be compatible with HPLIP:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/hplip/files/

I was wrong. That's the funniest part of your message. If HP doesn't
provide the worst quality printers, they provide the shortest lived
printers that exist. Buying a HP printer is only looking for troubles on
a short term.

> THAT'S how it's done. Easy peasy.

I have to acknowledge my previous mistakes. That's the funniest part of
your message. You managed to provide one of the most cumbersome way to
print a bad quality document pretending it's easy. In fact anyone using
the default of his or her distro would be faster to get a better quality
document.

> Need a queue? Need something more?
>
> Then just get off your fat ass and put your scripting skills
> to work.

Once again, I was wrong. That's the funniest part of your message. That
means you are unable to do it. So when you need to print two documents,
you have to wait for the first ont to be fully printed before being able
to print the second one. That's hilarious.

> With GNU/Linux anything is possible.

Yes, not done by you but it is.

> Say "kiss off" to that junk CUPS. Print like an expert
> with ghostscript and hpijs.

You are one of the greatest advocates of CUPS. With only one message, you
managed to convince anyone considering to use something else than CUPS
to stay with CUPS.

Once again, The best way for you to support a cause is to avoid at all
cost to speak about it.

> Of course I threw my HP110 into the garbage pit some time ago

You see? HP printers are short lived garbage.

> but I still have my scripts just in case I need to resurrect

That means you found those scripts somewhere a long time ago and you are
unable to produce them. You claim they are yours, but you just stole
them. That's why you are unable to use a queue: you didn't find anything
for that on Internet.

> an 800-year-old methodology.

If Gutenberg was seing this message, he would deny everything you posted
in it. He would feel offended to be related with you.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 28 Sep 2024 16:44:11 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
>> All GNU/Linux software should produce PostScript output for
>> printing.
>
> Why? You are shooting things without argument. Why is PostScript better
> than everything else? For example, when you want to print a picture why
> should it be converted to PostScript? If your software is a bad quality
> one, the output will be shit whichever format you chose.
>

You are a total idiot.

PostScript is the lingua franca of Unix, and hence GNU/Linux.

There are printers that print PostScript directly, but otherwise
the PostScript file, which is created by all GNU/Linux, will
require a conversion program, or driver, to translate PostScript
commands into the specific printer commands.

If you don't want to fuck around with drivers then just purchase
a PostScript printer.

And yes, PostScript is used to print images as well.

So please, shut your fat ignoramus mouth. You know NOTHING about
how printing is accomplished with GNU/Linux. Nothing.

Furthermore, LibreOffice *can* produce high quality documents,
but usually LaTeX DVI is converted to PostScript and then printed.

In GNU/Linux, all printing is done via PostScript.

So shut the fuck up.

If I am wrong, which I am not, then explain, in detail, how
printing is accomplished in GNU/Linux.

But you cannot.

So shut the fuck up.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 28 Sep 2024 16:44:11 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
>> All GNU/Linux software should produce PostScript output for
>> printing.
>
> Why? You are shooting things without argument. Why is PostScript better
> than everything else?
>

You are a total idiot and you make me mad.

ALL software ion GNU/Linux produces Postscript for printing.

Let's consider Cooledit, the text editor. If I instruct Cooledit
to print (Ctl+P) it will put up a dialog asking to print with
the command:

lpr file.txt

Lpr is the CUPS printing utility that handles, if necessary,
all conversions to PostScript. If no conversions are needed
then the PostScript output is unchanged.

Since I don't use CUPS I can substitute my own script for
lpr:

#!/bin/bash
PRINTFILE=`mktemp --suffix='.ps' --tmpdir=/tmp/printq app.XXX`
cat - > $PRINTFILE

This will redirect the output to a file in /tmp/printq and,
sure enough, the file is PostScript.

The same is true for LibreOffice and any other GNU/Linux application.

So, as usual, you are full of fucking shit.

Don't dare ever again to challenge my GNU/Linux authority.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Le 28-09-2024, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 28 Sep 2024 16:44:11 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>>> All GNU/Linux software should produce PostScript output for
>>> printing.
>>
>> Why? You are shooting things without argument. Why is PostScript better
>> than everything else? For example, when you want to print a picture why
>> should it be converted to PostScript? If your software is a bad quality
>> one, the output will be shit whichever format you chose.
>
> You are a total idiot.

Yes, we both know that. From a long time. You repeat yourself. You
granted me so many badges of honor that I have no more room to put this
new one on my wall of fame.

And, by the way, can you improve a little bit? Do you know only one word
for insulting? I'm trying to improve my English and reading always the
same word over and over again, which is the same in French, doesn't help.

> PostScript is the lingua franca of Unix, and hence GNU/Linux.

Do you really understand the meaning of every single word you are using
in this sentence? Because I do and this sentence means nothing. I
believe you can impress some little child, but to impress me, you'll
need to do way much better.

Postscript is either used to be printed or to be displayed on a screen.
But never between computers to exchange data. You can exchange
PostScript documents between computers, but the computers don't need to
be able to interpret them to do that, so it's not the same thing.

Unix in general and Linux in particular are never using PostScript
internally to convert it in the printer format in the end. They know
nothing about PostScript and use tools that can use, or not, PostScript
internally.

> There are printers that print PostScript directly,

Yes, and there are printers that can't. So what?

> but otherwise the PostScript file,

Yes, otherwise, you uselessly converted a file into PostScript to be
later converted into the format understood by the printer. So, you
explained you did a useless thing. Great job.

> which is created by all GNU/Linux,

Once again, it is nonsense. Linux is using external tools to convert
into PostScript format, but only when it's needed when the end-user is
smart.

> will require a conversion program, or driver, to translate PostScript
> commands into the specific printer commands.

OK, so even you understood you did something you don't even know if it's
useful. You want the tiniest kernel possible, but if you stop doing
useless things just because you believe you can do it, you'll realise
it's not as important as your claims. You are loosing a lot of time in
trying to improve your kernel just to be able to waste ressources asking
it to do unneeded stuff.

> If you don't want to fuck around with drivers then just purchase
> a PostScript printer.

Or let the well designed tools do the job. The only place where it's
difficult to print a document today is in your computer. Try to figure
out why.

> And yes, PostScript is used to print images as well.

I'm not asking you if you can use PostScript to print images. I know it
can. A long time ago to be able to insert images inside a LaTeX document
was to convert it in .eps. But it was a long time ago. It's not
requested anymore. So, I'm asking you what it brings to an image to be
converted into PostScript before being printed.

> So please, shut your fat ignoramus mouth.

I do what I want, and it's not a first class moron who will tell me what
to do.

> You know NOTHING about how printing is accomplished with GNU/Linux.
> Nothing.

Once again, you know nothing about me, about what I can do or what I
can't do. But the subject is not there. It's about your claims, and you
try to speak about me because you are unable to speak about printing.

> Furthermore, LibreOffice *can* produce high quality documents,

No. There is nothing to argue about that. It's, typographically
speaking, garbage and nothing can be done about it. So as the purpose of
a document is to be read, not to be displayed on a wall, there is
nothing more to say.

> but usually LaTeX DVI is converted to PostScript and then printed.

Not anymore. Modern LaTeX engines can directly produce pdf which can be
directly displayed without the need to be converted multiple times. And
the printed process is not as useful as it was in the past.

> In GNU/Linux, all printing is done via PostScript.

No. CUPS was using PostScript to print documents in the past. Not
anymore. Now it's using pdf internally. So if the printer doesn't
understand PostScript, it's never used.

You can use tool which are using PostScript internally, but there is
nothing mandatory about it.

> So shut the fuck up.

Once again: I do what I want. You can brag as long as you want, you are
unable to force me to do something.

> If I am wrong, which I am not,

You are always wrong. That's a simple well known fact.

> then explain, in detail, how printing is accomplished in GNU/Linux.

It depends on the tools you are using. A good one is CUPS, but as you
refuse to hear about it, it's useless to talk to you about it.

> But you cannot.

No, I can't. Your inability to understand simple things is beyond my
capacity to explain you the computer's basics.

> So shut the fuck up.

I do what I want. And I wont take advices from someone unable to pass
the Turing test.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

DetroitsFinest: In GNU/Linux, all printing is done via PostScript.

Carpentier: No. CUPS was using PostScript to print documents in the past.
Not anymore. Now it's using PDF internally.

So if the printer doesn't understand PostScript, it's never used.

..PDF files are PostScript. Open one in a text editor, you'll see.

On 28 Sep 2024 22:00:14 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
>> In GNU/Linux, all printing is done via PostScript.
>
> No. CUPS was using PostScript to print documents in the past. Not
> anymore. Now it's using pdf internally. So if the printer doesn't
> understand PostScript, it's never used.
>

PDF *is* PostScript, you infernal imbecile!

I've had it. There is no use attempting to reason with a complete
ignoramus like you.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 21:46:22 +0000, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote in
<pan$94b3c$11f14ce7$4f931e62$a0c0111f@linux.rocks>:

> pr file.txt
>
> Lpr is the CUPS printing utility that handles, if necessary,
> all conversions to PostScript. If no conversions are needed then the
> PostScript output is unchanged.

lpr(1) is the original interface to lpd(8) from BSD printing.

You're a bot, aren't you?

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"I'd love to, but I have to stay home and see if I snore"

On 28 Sep 2024 22:00:14 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote
in <66f87c6e$0$3581$426a74cc@news.free.fr>:

>> So shut the fuck up.
>
> I do what I want. And I wont take advices from someone unable to pass
> the Turing test.

He is very bot-like, isn't he?

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.11.0 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Trees hit cars only in self-defence."

Le 28-09-2024, Relf <Usenet@Jeff-Relf.Me> a écrit :
> DetroitsFinest: In GNU/Linux, all printing is done via PostScript.
>
> Carpentier: No. CUPS was using PostScript to print documents in the past.
> Not anymore. Now it's using PDF internally.
>
> So if the printer doesn't understand PostScript, it's never used.
>
> .PDF files are PostScript. Open one in a text editor, you'll see.

No. The commands are not the same. Take a PostScript document, convert
it in a pdf one and compare the output of them both in a text editor.
You'll see it's not the same. There is way more binary data in a pdf
file than in a PostScript one.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 28-09-2024, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> a écrit :
> On 28 Sep 2024 22:00:14 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote
> in <66f87c6e$0$3581$426a74cc@news.free.fr>:
>
>>> So shut the fuck up.
>>
>> I do what I want. And I wont take advices from someone unable to pass
>> the Turing test.
>
> He is very bot-like, isn't he?

Yes. It was the meaning of my sentence.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On Sat, 28 Sep 2024 15:08:37 -0700 (Seattle), Relf wrote:

> .PDF files are PostScript. Open one in a text editor, you'll see.

Absolutely not. PostScript is a Turing complete, stack oriiented, RPN
language. Open a PS file and you'll see human readable (more or less)
code.

The closest it comes is a pdf file may be a rendered PS file. Open a pdf
with vim and tell me what you see past the header info.

On 28 Sep 2024 22:16:48 GMT, vallor wrote:

>
> lpr(1) is the original interface to lpd(8) from BSD printing.
>

https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/lpr.1.html

How does it feel to be continuously shot down?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

But I actually use the original (pre-CUPS) lpr-0.50.

See if you can find it.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 29 Sep 2024 02:25:51 GMT, rbowman wrote:

>
>> .PDF files are PostScript. Open one in a text editor, you'll see.
>
> Absolutely not. PostScript is a Turing complete, stack oriiented, RPN
> language.
>

Incorrect. It is absolutely fucking true.

PDF is derived entirely from PostScript as a SUBSET:

"The PDF and PostScript share the same imaging model and both documents are
mutually convertible to each other. Both documents produce the same result
when printed. The difference between the PDF and PostScript is that the PDF
lacks the general-purpose programming language framework of the PostScript
language."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostScript

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

You(rBowman)Replied(to me):
> > .PDF files are PostScript. Open one in a text editor, you'll see.
>
> Open a pdf with vim and tell me what you see past the header info.

"past the header info" ?! There is no "header".

%PDF-1.2
44 0 obj << /E 2248 /H [ 957 193 ] /L 57656 /Linearized 1 >> endobj

No need to "see past" anything, this is the 1992 proprietary version of
"Interchange PostScript" ( the OPEN standard, ISO 32000, came in 2008 ).

Quote: Based on the PostScript language, each PDF file encapsulates . . .

Quote:
Development of PDF began in 1991 when Adobe's co-founder John Warnock
wrote a paper for a project then code-named Camelot, in which he
proposed the creation of a simplified version of Adobe's PostScript
format called Interchange PostScript (IPS).

Unlike traditional PostScript, which was tightly focused on
rendering print jobs to output devices, IPS would be optimized for
displaying pages to any screen and any platform.

Nux Vomica wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 28 Sep 2024 22:16:48 GMT, vallor wrote:
>
>> lpr(1) is the original interface to lpd(8) from BSD printing.
>
> https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/lpr.1.html
>
> How does it feel to be continuously shot down?
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
> But I actually use the original (pre-CUPS) lpr-0.50.
> See if you can find it.

Dude, the "lp" commands pre-date CUPS. If you have CUPS, they are basically
wrappers for CUPS (or reimplementations, I don't know which).

Here's lpq on AIX:

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.2?topic=l-lpq-command

The lpq command includes information for the AIX® Print Subsystem lpq
and the System V Print Subsystem lpq.

Nothing about CUPS there.

Overview:

History

LPR/LPD comes from the Berkeley print system, part of the BSD or
Berkeley Software Distribution. BSD, in turn, follows UNIX System V, one
of the first commercial versions of Unix System V printing with similar
commands and concepts to LPR. LPR/LPD was to be more uniform across
different Unix systems.

Windows platforms, by default, support LPR/LPD printing. You may have to
enable a setting to make LPR available to you.

But that's okay, Junior, you can still use the "lp" commands.

--
Harp not on that string.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"

On 2024-09-28 6:00 p.m., Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 28-09-2024, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>> On 28 Sep 2024 16:44:11 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> All GNU/Linux software should produce PostScript output for
>>>> printing.
>>>
>>> Why? You are shooting things without argument. Why is PostScript better
>>> than everything else? For example, when you want to print a picture why
>>> should it be converted to PostScript? If your software is a bad quality
>>> one, the output will be shit whichever format you chose.
>>
>> You are a total idiot.
>
> Yes, we both know that. From a long time. You repeat yourself. You
> granted me so many badges of honor that I have no more room to put this
> new one on my wall of fame.
>
> And, by the way, can you improve a little bit? Do you know only one word
> for insulting? I'm trying to improve my English and reading always the
> same word over and over again, which is the same in French, doesn't help.

LOL. For what it's worth, your English is rather great. The only mistake
I could highlight from quick reads was when you told Larry that he had
amassed "very few knowledge." It should have read "very little
knowledge." Since knowledge cannot be pluralized, it shouldn't use "few."

< snip >

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

Le 29-09-2024, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 29 Sep 2024 02:25:51 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>>
>>> .PDF files are PostScript. Open one in a text editor, you'll see.
>>
>> Absolutely not. PostScript is a Turing complete, stack oriiented, RPN
>> language.
>
> Incorrect. It is absolutely fucking true.

Nope. And you just managed to prove you are wrong in your own answer.

> PDF is derived entirely from PostScript as a SUBSET:

So:
- "it's derived" means they both evolved independently and what was true
years ago isn't today.
- "SUBSET" means everything isn't included so it's not the same thing.

> The difference between the PDF and PostScript is that the PDF
> lacks the general-purpose programming language framework of the PostScript
> language."

So when rbowman says one is a Turing complet programming language, and
the other is not is true.

Good job proving you are wrong claiming others are.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 29-09-2024, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> a écrit :
>
> The only mistake I could highlight from quick reads was when you told
> Larry that he had amassed "very few knowledge." It should have read
> "very little knowledge." Since knowledge cannot be pluralized, it
> shouldn't use "few."

Thanks, I'll try to remember that.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 29 Sep 2024 13:14:23 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
> So when rbowman says one is a Turing complet programming language, and
> the other is not is true.
>

Blowman, like you, is a total idiot.

The relevant portion of the Wiki quote is this:

"The PDF and PostScript share the same imaging model and both documents
are mutually convertible to each other."

IOW, PostScript is dynamic but PDF is static.

But how they render content is EXACTLY the same.

So SHUT THE FUCK UP!

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

You(DetroitsFinest)Replied(to Carpentier):
> > So, [as] rbowman says:
> > "one is a Turing Complete programming language, and the other is not".
>
> Blowman, like you, is a total idiot.

Neither rBowman nor Carpentier know what "Turing Completeness" means.

%PDF-1.2
44 0 obj << /E 2248 /H [ 957 193 ] /L 57656 /Linearized 1 >> endobj

Le 29-09-2024, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 29 Sep 2024 13:14:23 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> So when rbowman says one is a Turing complet programming language, and
>> the other is not is true.
>
> Blowman, like you, is a total idiot.

Can't improve a little bit instead of repeating yourself? Are you really
that limited?

> The relevant portion of the Wiki quote is this:
>
> "The PDF and PostScript share the same imaging model and both documents
> are mutually convertible to each other."

That's a very good one. You can convert a jpg into a gif, so the gif is
the same thing as a bmp? If you convert a format into another, it's well
because it's not the same, so it needs a conversion.

When one say that a Microsoft PowerPoint document .pptx is a zip file,
it's because it can be opened by a zip utility and looked into without
changing anything. There is nothing to convert.
When you want to open a PostScript file in a pdf viewer it's not always
able to open it without plugin.

> IOW, PostScript is dynamic but PDF is static.
>
> But how they render content is EXACTLY the same.

And you can encapsulate a jpg file into PostScript and so the render
content will be exactly the same. So an image is a PostScript document?

> So SHUT THE FUCK UP!

You can still shoot how long as you want, I'm still not listening to your
advices.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 08:27:51 -0700 (Seattle), Relf wrote:

> You(DetroitsFinest)Replied(to Carpentier):
>> > So, [as] rbowman says:
>> > "one is a Turing Complete programming language, and the other is
>> > not".
>>
>> Blowman, like you, is a total idiot.
>
> Neither rBowman nor Carpentier know what "Turing Completeness" means.
>
> %PDF-1.2 44 0 obj << /E 2248 /H [ 957 193 ] /L 57656 /Linearized 1
> >> endobj

https://riptutorial.com/postscript

Educate yourself.

On 29 Sep 2024 18:09:50 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>>
>> "The PDF and PostScript share the same imaging model and both documents
>> are mutually convertible to each other."
>
> That's a very good one. You can convert a jpg into a gif, so the gif is
> the same thing as a bmp? If you convert a format into another, it's well
> because it's not the same, so it needs a conversion.
>

Oh my god! You are a SUPREME idiot!

Image files cannot ever be compared to document files!

I will, however, pursue this no further. I will allow you
to research the various image and document formats in order
to obtain a rudimentary understanding.

But, for an ignoramus like you, it may be an impossible
task.

Remember:

I am GNU/Linux master.

You are GNU/Linux flunky.

In other words: SHUT THE FUCK UP!

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.