Network Dymo label printer?

ends to be a computer and shares a USB printer etc on the network). I'v= e used several and they're almost as easy as a proper network printer.

The standalone print-servers I used just worked, on anything. Parallel = and USB. As long as you had the driver for the printer on the computer,= it passed everything through.

-- =

Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.

HP direct type stuff is a straight port thing. Cant remember which port(s) tho.

ISTR you add a TCP/IP printing port.

yeah. But there's 631 which is cups. another one for LPD and something like 9100/1/2/3 for HP jet direct.

I think that's what I always used. Epson and HP.

-- =

Watching his date from the corner of his eye while he poured her a drink= , the young bachelor said, "Say when." She replied, "Right after that drink."

Ok, it might be worth a go with a basic dedicated server then.

Cheers, T i m

Noted.

Cheers, T i m

Certainly so if you get the choice (like Windows and Mac users). It seems a shame that Dymo offer a Linux driver (via CUPS?) but don't offer the 'handy' printing app?

In the same way I think it's a shame that the likes of Garmin and TomTom don't offer much in the way of Linux support when their devices probably run on it?

Cheers, T i m

It's the price you pay for running a wonderful OS which is so much better than Windose in every way. According to many here. ;-)

I prefer RISC OS for much of my day to day stuff. But accept its limitations and use Windows for the things it does best.

Oh, right. You mean (TCP/IP) port number. I thought you meant (COM/LPT/USB) port number :-)

I think that should read 'according to a tiny minority here' as I'm pretty sure that only a tiny minority are running Linux in the first place and many of those (here) would be realists and tread an OS as you or I do, a tool, a means_to_an_end. On the Linux n/g's on the other hand (and even in contrast to the moderated Linux forums where any fanaticism is nipped in the bud at the first outburst) there is no other OS or world even than that of *nix. ;-)

Ok. On what machine OOI (I'm not sure I've ever used a native RISC computer [1]) and 'why' (may I ask)?

Which ironically is 'most everyday things', or I'm guessing more people would by Macs or even find out that there is a Free (of cost, few are interested in any other use of the word) OS that would be reasonably likely to run on their existing hardware and do *most* of what some people want.

I can say that because even the most fanatical Linux geeks here admit

Linux is like an electric car. Great idea in principal but very restricted and totally unusable for / by many (especially when it needs fixing and no one they know has a clue and you can't find a place easily that will look at it either). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

The best way to run windows is with an older version inside either WINE or a virtual sandbox.

Many of my linux programs have no Windows alternatives.

No, that would be the_worst_way for the vast majority of ordinary computer users (extra layers of things likely to go wrong or making it all more difficult).

And how many of those do you think 'most people' (eg, not you or any other cut-your-nose-off-to-spite-your-face-geek) would ever miss?

Don't get me wrong, my first port of call when testing some misbehaving hardware (typically running Windows) is a Linux Live DVD or Pen drive and I often use Gparted because it's good at what it does. However, I could also use BART_PE or Hirens to do similar and often more.

So, I give a none geek a dual boot solution of Windows and Linux. The Linux is all set up to do what they require as close as possible and I show them how to do the basic maintenance stuff (like running the Linux updates).

Now, if (say) I say their PC can't be upgraded to the next version of Windows and is both screwed up AND not a genuine copy ... and I give them Linux instead ... what generally happens is a while later get a call asking me if I want their PC as they have gone out and bought a new (Windows) one. This is because they either 'couldn't get on with' or simply 'didn't like' Linux (their choice after all) or they actually *needed* something like iTunes, tried to install it on Linux, found it didn't work and so just wanted a working solution.

For them, trying to run Linux as their daily desktop is like the tail wagging the dog, just the same as trying to use a Plug-In EV as a 24 hour a day emergency response vehicle where one call out could exhaust the battery.

However, since I've been involved in Linux (this time round) it *is* getting better every new release but because it is what it is ... and is 'managed' by the people like you ... it will always be a 'nearly ran' when it could be so much more.

Cheers, T i m

reverse in my case. Users who find windows difficult find linux no harder.

Of course it would be. ;-)

I said nothing about anyone finding anything difficult, just the expectation of being able to do anything they may want to do and may have done previously they can no longer do (at all, often) on Linux.

After all, if *you* could do everything you wanted with just Linux you wouldn't still be running Windows programs on Windows VMs or in WINE would you eh. ;-)

I would love to be able to find an instance where giving someone Linux actually makes their day better or the usage of their machine easier but unfortunately that hasn't happened yet. But unlike you, I'm not a Linux (or any OS for that matter) advocate and so (of course) help people with whatever solution works best for *them*. If that happened to be Linux (as it hasn't to the exclusion of Windows for the must-have programs as yet), I would be very happy, well till it went wrong and they *expected* me to be able to fix it. I have done so but I was very much out of my depth, and that is in spite of building, installing and maintaining PC's (and servers running Windows, Netware and OS/2) for many many years.

It seems very little of the skill (that seemed to be more than sufficient for every Co I've worked for or individual I've helped) that I gained from dealing with DOS, CPM, Windows, OS2, Apple OS, OSX, Netware or even Android has been any use to me re maintaining Linux.

Maybe that was because MSDOS was simple and most of the rest could be (mostly) maintained via the GUI which was easily explorable, unlike the CLI?

But hey, horses for courses and I've never dissed anyone who found any one OS 'better' for their needs than something else, I just have issues with the fanatics who diss something used daily by billions of people with no issues what so ever but who actually use such things themselves!

If you don't like the heat, stay out of the kitchen ... *completely*, or STFU. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

I am down to just two CAD programs and they run better in a VM than they ever did on native windows. TBH I probably dnt even need Core Draw as there are equally good vector graphics programs, but I am used to ot.

About once or twice a year these days.

I'm only a advocate because life got better when I moved to Linux.

That was eary 2000's. Since the its just got easier.

If that happened

I never maintain linux. I just hit the button and it updates.

Its easier than windows. It doesn't demand to be rebooted.

No one uses the CLI in linux these days unless they are some kind of purist geek or running a server with no screen.

You'd hope so, but you can virtually guarantee any Windows question on here will get a 'you should be using Linix' answer from the usual suspects. Who seem to worship that as much as St Nige. ;-)

I'm probably of an age where RISC OS can have been your first experience of computers. At work, in my case. But have never really been a computer nerd. It served my purpose very well until browsers started using things that RISC OS couldn't provide or keep up with the latest versions. Things like Javascript, Flash and so on. That I'll bet Linux have the same problems with. So I simply added a PC to the workstation via a KVM switch. Allowing me to stick with the OS I like for the things it still does well, but have a PC for those it doesn't. Ie, mainly browsing and AV stuff.

Sadly most will want one which does everything. Which usually means Windows.

But then I have two cars too. ;-)

There are modern RISC OS computers. Very high cost though.

This ancient RPC has twin processors. The second one (486) to turn it into a PC. But sadly never worked as well as a PC running the same processor natively. But in any case bowed out after Win98.

Are you saying that a Raspberry Pi is expensive?

Regards.

No. But it's not what most would consider a desktop computer. Or a laptop, come to that. But certainly a cheap enough introduction.