Epson Stylus Photo R360 PPD download?

Yes - but I would like a ppd file - but there doesn't seem to be one.
I have tried avasys - and I can print with that - but I would like to configure my printer with yast - not use pips...

A ppd file actualy is a parameter file that is used by postscript drivers to
known the capabilities of a certain printer.. (can handle A4, Letter, A3,
duplex, sorting multiple trays etc. or not, max pixels per page, available fonts
 etc. optional some extra code for page ends...)
It is a plain text file, you can edit it with any text editor (ed, joe, vi[m],
nano, nano etc)

If you know the parameters, choose a likewise printer and adjust it's settings.

BTW, there might be a very good reason why a ppd file doesn't exist...,
and the pipslight does exist
the other drivers might not be able to handle the printer very well.

But I don't know the parameters, noci, and I have tried several ppd files for the following printers without success with the R360:

R300
R320
R340 (This you would think, would work!!! - It is only one model down from the R360)
R2400
R800
RX425

Any ideas about a compatible ppd that I can edit, if necessary (and possibly what I would need to change!)?

I don't have the specs for the EPSON R360, (I dont have one, but were in a similar boat for HP USB printing)
Until they got HPLIP started. Printing is one thing, pushing stuff to a printer is another.
the printing parts is CUPS and the shoving it down to the printer HPLIP, also HPLIP allows the scanner & fax to work now.

And a number below or above doesn;t say a lot about models.

R360, R380, R390 are mentioned in one GO.

R340, R350 are also for pipslite.

Even foomatic has no ppd files for these...
Problem is you probably need the pipslite (it uses Ghostscript to print to a generic format raster format (PNG file with 360DPI) and
that is transferred to the printer).

appearantly no ppd file is needed then...?
The ESC/P command set is used to transfer the image to the printer.

@xberry,
I agree if you look on linuxprinting.org.

Epson publishes a driver/backend filter that cooperates with the printer
(pips-lite), it can handle postscript etc. data transfer to the printer is
done in 360dpi ESC/P command format.

The the earlier mention avasys.jp site.

It supports the R360, in the code there are no special provisions
whatsoever for this printer. Alls supported printers seem to be
handled the same. The backend driver is intergrated into CUPS.

@and235100,
I don't have the printer, I dont have the booklets that came with it.
The PPD file describes what a printer can handle, 1 tray 10 trays etc.
see for a PPD file of a known existing printer, compare it to its specs and then translate the specs of the R360 into a new PPD file...,
then you would still need a tool to get the output from CUPS (postscript raw or translated through Ghostscript) to your printer. Native support in ghostscript is
for Epson 12 & Epson 24 needle printers (ESP/P commandset). It can also produce raster images.
Pipslite-cups package from epson has taken the course to run all output through Ghostscript to generate a PNG file @360dpi (a rasterformat) and have that translated to ESC/P commandset through a program supplied with the pips-lite toolkit.

Try to follow the instructions on the pips-lite readme file.

noci,

funny, but I also did recommend and235100 the pips package form avasys here:
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Operating_Systems/Linux/Linux_Setup/Q_22095397.html#a18183370  : ))

Seems it did not work for him. Maybe you have an idea what went wrong,
since I also find it hard to follow through, since I don't have a R 360 printer
here in order to verify instructions.

I allways setup my cups printers throught the browser interface.
As that means the cups software make all probable selections.

To point the browser on that system to: http://localhost:631/
and add a printer. (the browser can be anything like:
lynx, links, konqueror, firefox, opera ....)
Adding a printer HP printer through lpadmin means you have to lookup a lot, through
this cups browser interface it more like point & click.

And in this case I guess a fairly plain default ppd is chosen (as no such thing is provided). Because of the png intermediate file there aren't a lot of choices regarding the backend I guess the Epson doesn't have a staple unit, multiple trays etc. Because everything is rasterized before printing font's dont realy matter,
it just what ghostscript sees so things are fairly simple then.

Oh well - I didn't find what I was looking for.

Just to let you know, I could successfully print using cupslite - but this wasn't quite what I wanted to use.

Also - after updating CUPS on my distro, I still need the ppd file to configure my printer on localhost:631 - therefore I gave up this way as well.

I wanted a proper solution for this, where I wouldn't have to mess around - unfortunately, this is why MS win everytime with their OS's - you don't need a ppd - you have a .inf and a .sys and they are available as soon as the device comes out on the market. - but there you go...

Epson should provide support for their printers in OS's other than Windows - when you email them, (as you do find with a lot of other companies), they will not assist with Linux - so I will give up (after all - I just use VMware to run Windows on my linux box - and print out what I like with a no-nonsense printer installation...

Thanks anyway.

For MS with a postscript printer you also need a PPD, it's a description of the postscript printers' capabilities. In this case it isn't a postscript printer as such, but CUPS mimicks one for all apps on unix. And the cups backend (through Ghostscript provides a driver [ for many printers ])
PCL is supported through an extension of Ghostscript. Some other are supported otherwise.
In your case Ghostscript is used to rasterise the output to a PNG (graphics format like BMP on windows) file and that is converted to Epson's printer command language named ESC/P
(the printer language also found with the R80 printer of IBM at the time the IBM PC came to life).  (pips light is the same as your .SYS file in windows.)
Also for all kinds of HP printers you need a driver library called hplip.

The problem will become bigger when more winprinters become available. Those need the Win32 rendering engine to function ==> No Windows = no output.
Effectively the windows host makes a bitmap image from a Windows Meta Graphics file and that bitmap is posted to the actual printer.   it makes cheap printers as only the image transfer function is needed, no powerfull processor etc.
Epson does provide support for their printers to an extend, the make a driver, they just forgot the PPD file.

As your answer is not effectively answered you may ask for a refund.

noci - the point I was making is that if the majority of companies thought linux-based distros were serious, then an appropriately easy way to install ALL printers, whether they have just come onto the market or not would be provided. (It is funny how you have Windows drivers as soon as a new device comes out, but not linux ones...)

(From what xberry said:
@Actually the Epson Stylus Photo R 360 is very new on the market, it has only been released in October 2006,
so the Linux development communtity will catch up but needs it's time to provide something ready made,
instant going...
)

This goes to show that linux is not really a "serious" option, as the companies would provide proper support "out-of-the-box". But they don't! Surely, in a perfect world, the "linux development community" wouldn't have to bother sorting support out for new devices - as the companies would do it!!!

Ultimately - the "linux development community" have got to concentrate on instant, plug-in support for new devices - otherwise each time a new device comes out, you lose more and more people to Microsoft - I mean, plug 'n play might be bad - but linux support for new devices with old fashioned ppd files...come on!!!

Well HP found out that it IS a big market and they they took over the development of HPOJ + HPINKJET (both on sf.net)
and provided a new development team on it. That build something from the ground up. (HPLIP) so some manufacturers ARE taking it seriously.
Development still continues. The HPOJ developer was having trouble to get the right docs to implement the features as faxing through
Office Jets etc.

Then there are a dozen different printing systems available, lpd the most common is hardly usable for a modern frontend
that needs more knowledge of a printer to make advanced use of it.

This is where CUPS comes in. It now runs on many systems in a consistent way. with adequate control (quota etc.)
This development will make it feasable for anyone to provide "drivers" or mere description of printers in the form of PostScript Printer
Descriptions. Not having to deal with the frontend of the printing system with all the various desktops available
(Motif, CDE, KDE, Gnome etc. etc.) (that where the PPD is mostly used). Frontends such as the Kdeprinter & Gnomeprinting systems asume that the backend is a postscript (virtualized by ghostscript or not) printer, and hence need a PPD files to read the printer capabilities wether it can do duplex printing etc. and if they need to show the options for it. Windows is not different in this respect.

All postscript printers take ONE form of input, a postscript program. Wether it has two, or ten trays, uses color separation or not,
has a single output tray or a full featured 30 way sorter etc. or not The PPD files just tell the frontend how many trays can be chosen etc
PPD files are not for the driver Per Se, they are more for the frontend to show the options there.
Just check a windows installation with a Postscript printer, it has one generic driver (may be a different one for Postscript V2 & one for Postscript V3)
and PPD's are used to configure the options for such a printer. As such PPD files are hardly old fashioned. PPD's are not drivers just descriptions.
Also with the PPD's one driver can handle several thousands of printers in a uniform way.

Wrt. windows having drivers..., well it is a big market investing say a few man years on a driver and selling several millions or
adding a new driver and selling only a few ten/hundred thousands.
some manufacturers opt for cheap..., and develop one, that says more about the printer manufacturer then the state of "seriousness" of linux.
(or Unix in that view).
Also drivers need to be made in advance of sale of such a thing, some times it can take half a year to a year to test drivers on all kinds of equipment,
and for windows manufacturers appeareanly like to do it. A lot of companies want to keep things a secret even after they supply the hardware.
(Nvidia, ATI).

CUPS is the plugin system for unix printing.  (Redhat only started to use it on Fedora6, before that they used a beefed up version of lpd named lprng.

There are a lot of developers willing to spend even their free time on it, if specs were available..., with respect to nvidia drivers there is a team working on it they are reverse enginering the specs of dozens of graphics cards and are currently developing an open source full 3d accelerating driver for it.
But the need to reverse engineer the hardware specs is a PITA, nvidia won't supply details so a lot of time & effort is wasted here that could just have been devoted to creating a driver from specs.
For wireless the state is worse. The tendency to use DSP driven hardware means that reverse engineering is not just one the PCI bus level, but also beyond that on the DSP driven hardware. There are only 2 or 3 wireless manufacturers that even give specs to developers before hardware exists
nut surprising they have the best drivers & support for linux. (nope it's not intel). Search OSnews for recent news about this.

All very interesting, i'm sure... just not relevant to this particular issue.

I am sorry if it came over that I thought ppd's were "drivers" - I knew this wasn't the case.

I just feel that, from my own short experience with non-windows based os's, that although pro-open source people complain about Microsoft, ultimately, look at market share! If big companies in general thought linux was worthwhile - then you would have more popular and greater numbers of linux-based software than Windows-based - and whatever you say - this simply is, and probably never will be true for the near-to mid future of computing!

In the settings where I operate (OpenVMS/Unix mainly) wireless is considered a threat not a feature..., printers are mostly HP, Xerox (Big laser printers/finishing streets, not inkjets) or at least Postscript  (and they have good support...)  
For the bigger companies at the server level this is more or less a non-issue.

For the desktop it is about to change even then the same applies bigger central printers not printers on any desktop, and mostly HP.

Ah - but home users are still a big market - and companies should strive to make things easier...

Centralisation will not work in all circumstances - and you still need specialist devices that can print at a high dpi (e.g. top end inkjets - as opposed to poorer quality top-end lasers)  

Seems that noci has good background knowledge (which I barely have) for taking a stand for Linux here : ))

Nevertheless, I spent many years with Windows when Windows came up and then six years time with Linux, as home user
for study and for doing some development work . . . lets see which thoughts I get to that scene:
 
>> If big companies in general thought linux was worthwhile . . .
>>>  Ah - but home users are still a big market - and companies should strive to make things easier...

Well, as noci did lay out, many firms know that Linux IS worthwhile and stick their brains to it, but
what you cannot put to weight,  in my opinion, is the raw commercial interests or need of firms in selling their
peripheral products ... for the home user Microsoft got their OS products on market well time before Linux
came up. For reasons of economical growth any hardware manufacturers simply had to put their boat onto the vast
Microsoft stream and still do it, it doesn't matter if the Microsoft water is dirty or clean, as long as it's lots and
flowing and much bigger than the LInux 'river', many firms will put priority there. However, this is
NOT related to quality or value ...  Microsoft got their feet in first on the vast home user market and made sure
to keep up that monopol like situation as long as possible. The fundamental difference between MS Windows OS
and any Linux is that Linux is open source while MS Windows is not. That reason making it for the Linux OS
being rather dependent on enthusiasts than on market players, consider the fact that numbers of Linux OS is a growing
from it's beginning, while the humble MS giant is still profiting from it's initial impact and impression it has left
on the market - well deserved one may say, but no more comparable than apples to eggs as far as quality is concerned.
Short - if industries concentrate on drivers and workability with MS Windows then it is that their share of the home PC
market is still at around 95 % (tell me if I am wrong) while the 'younger' Linux OS did climb from 0 to about 4 %
in a couple of years, which is an incredible achievement, but yet not relevant to the commercial mind I am afraid.
You work it out yourself ; ))

Anyway, I think you best get along if you don't relate operating system to each other, you will always
find to have one being more suitable in a specific area, depending how your own preferences and interests
are layed out.

Linux is growing and 'printer compatibility' may increase, too, but for the near future
the situation will present itself like this:
You enter a near computer shop and purchase yourself the latest printer device from company 'Anyone'
and the salesperson will point out to you that the printer has included a CD with MS Windows
printer drivers on it, because he 'blindly' does expect you to run on that OS.  

So my advice when you need to get new hardware for your Linux box:
First get advice, information on compatibility, from the database of the Linux
distributor, from the HW-manufacturer or simply ask here at EE, and only then
you jump and get your new device. Two different OSses, two different ways
on the home user line ...

     







 

@xberry

"So my advice when you need to get new hardware for your Linux box:
First get advice, information on compatibility, from the database of the Linux
distributor, from the HW-manufacturer or simply ask here at EE, and only then
you jump and get your new device. Two different OSses, two different ways
on the home user line ..."

Here is the fundamental flaw in your arguement - you shouldn't need to find out compatibility information for printers... they are a vital piece of IT equipment - they have been used since the beginning of IT use and development - one of the original "output" devices that are very necessary and remain so! The only compatibility issue was USB2.0 a few years ago - but all printers were backwards compatible, so even that wasn't really a concern...

I mean - how many printers does the company you work for buy in? We buy in 50 or so a year (I know this is a small number, and corporate is different from the home user market) - but the point is, of those, we know without any uncertainty that they will ALL work with Windows. No question! Brand new printers included. I can't see the same undoubted assurance with any linux-based distro!!! We would, as you say, have to check for compatibility, and several other issues, such as networkability and training for colleagues to be able to print to them!

This is probably the most important arguement in why M$t holds such a market share over open-source products!



 

There are printers out there (mostly industrial stuff) that have hardly or no
windows support but excelent Unix, VMS etc. support.
Why well because for them it's their biggest market.

Mmmm... are we getting anywhere???

Nope AFAICT
The answer ended with my post on:

"For MS ..... refund" (29-dec-2006, 21:27, CET)