> Are you sure they have given out this info?
Let me explain a little more here. They did give out information abouta
different scanner within their line. The software was, of course,
not the one to use for my scanner.
> Is this true are the manufacturers just getting tired
> of giving out the same info without results?
I can't attest to this. I haven't received anything that I could use.
> If this is true we should be pooling our
> resources, i.e. some people who are good at
> sweet talking manufactures and those of us who
> would rather just hack?
That may be a good idea.
> I am currently trying to get some specs for a rather
> obscure scanner and having a heck of a time getting it.
Probably as obscure as mine. I have a Plustek Scan Plus Color 6000.
> One of the reasons I have not been pursuing this to
> strongly is that I have looked at the Linux2.1.x drivers
> and see a lot of neat stuff to make the writing of
> specific kernel drivers unnecessary (provided the
> manufacturer follows one of the IEEE specs).
I doubt that my manufactorer did.
> In any case I am hoping to write a user space meta
> driver for the scanner I have.
Is it for a parallel scanner? Is it reusable to other types?
Thanks,
Chris Sparks
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com