How will open source software recover from this?
"My wife has complained that open office will never print on Tuesdays!?!"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cupsys/+bug/255161/comments/28
>>54613343
c u next tuesday
>>54613343
It's even better than the "user" string in windows' profile name causing high cpu usage
What a fascinating bug!! My wife has complained that open office will never print on Tuesdays!?! Then she demonstrated it. Sure enough, won't print on Tuesday. Other applications print. I think this is the same bug. Here is my guess:
Print to a postscript file. Observe the line:
%%CreationDate: (Tue Mar 3 19:47:42 2009)
Change "Tue" to anything else:
%%CreationDate: (XTue Mar 3 19:47:42 2009)
Save the file and it prints. Tools like evince work because they simply omit the "CreationDate" tag to begin with.
Now something odd happens when my cups script (I am using the Brother MFC420CN) copies the file to a temp file. Some of the code is rearranged, not sure how or why, but it uses a command called "file" to identify the file as "PostScript". This check would work on the original file you printed, but by the time it runs the check on the temp file, it misidentifies. Normally it would return:
PostScript document text conforming at level 3.0
But there is another check that happens before the PostScript check. If it finds "Tue" at the fourth byte of the file, it identifies it as:
Jan 22 14:32:44 MET 1991\011Erlang JAM file - version 4.2
So it's not a problem w/ openoffice.org, cups, or the brother printer drivers. It is a bug in the `file` utility, and documented at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/file/+bug/248619.
Now, I cannot recommend a fix, but here is my workaround hack:
make a change in file /usr/local/Brother/lpd/filterMFC420CN
change:
cat > $INPUT_TEMP
to:
cat | sed -e 's/^%%CreationDate: (Tue/%%CreationDate: (tue/' > $INPUT_TEMP
This will identify a pattern that matches "%%CreationDate: (Tue" at the start of a line, and change "Tue" to "tue".
>openoffice
>2016
are you fucking retarded? either get libreoffice or learn LaTeX
>>54613343
>open source failing once again
this isn't news
>>54613343
>open office
Why the fuck is anyone still using this? LibreOffice has been around for years now and is superior in every way.
>>54613738
>>54613977
>>54613992
it isn't an openoffice bug, the `file` command fails.
>>54613343
This is from 2009 you faggots, you could see Ubuntu is still doing well
>>54613717
>Ubuntue
>>54614030
So? OP is still an idiot for using OpenOffice when LibreOffice exists.
>>54614072
...You think OP is using OpenOffice?
>>54614084
OP = Original Poster
the guy who posted the bug report originally, aka the ORIGINAL POSTER clearly mentions openoffice
>>54614106
Uh... huh.
LibreOffice didn't even exist then.
>>54613343
Wew nice work copying hacker news
>>54614111
this brings us to another point, the point is that this thread is fucking retarded since the bug report is from 2009
>>54613411
At least with open source software we know where the error is and can fix it.
