> A quick aside, your Unix example is quite nice, I agree.
> However, those not familiar with Unix (and all the common
> variants) should understand that your example is actually
> not valid, at least from stock O/S vendors.
>> Perhaps you were thinking of the capabilities provided by
> Patrick Powell's fine LPRng suite, which exposes network-
> attached printers using standard hostname conventions
> (rather than sysadmin-defined printer objects on the local
> platform).
Actually, I was thinking about the lpr client that I wrote
many years ago, that allows the user to specify host and
printer name on the command-line.
Sadly, most current UNIX print systems also require explicit
configuration, even for a remote printer with a lpd interface.
Keith