[2802] in bugtraq
Re: Write-only devices (Was read only devices)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Jeremy)
Mon Jun 24 21:53:36 1996
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 07:35:14 +1000
Reply-To: Bugtraq List <BUGTRAQ@netspace.org>
From: Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsms01.alcatel.com.au>
To: Multiple recipients of list BUGTRAQ <BUGTRAQ@netspace.org>
On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Paul C Leyland <pcl@foo.oucs.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> Cheap 9-pin printers are simple, reliable and
>understandable.
Cheap and understandable I'll accept. `reliable' I won't - at least
not at a system level (accepting data and producing a legible paper
record). In my experience, dot-matrix pin-printers fail in the
following ways:
- the ribbon runs out
- The ribbon creases or jumps a guide, producing white-on-white printouts
- the paper runs out
- the paper mis-stacks, jams the printer and results in a rectangular
black blot.
- the paper feed jams, tearing either the paper or the sprockets.
- the print-head snags a paper-fold, tearing the paper.
- ink dries out in the print-head, seizing the pins (this is unlikely in
a logging printer though).
Note that these problems happened using reputable brands of printers, with
proper fanfold paper. Possibly the printer quality has improved in the last
ten years...
Their other major problem is lack of speed. This makes them far more
susceptible to denial-of-service attacks.
> Linux boxes are complicated and go wrong more often and
>in mysterious ways.
I'd agree with the more complicated. I don't think they go wrong any more
often than printers.
Peter
----
Peter Jeremy (VK2PJ) peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au
Alcatel Australia Limited
41 Mandible St Phone: +61 2 690 5019
ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015 Fax: +61 2 690 5247
PGP fingerprint: 2A C6 47 D1 BF 56 5A 10 CC 02 2D 89 EA 10 AA 40
