Linux.com

Feature

Open source cracks publishing wide open

By Mary E. Tyler on June 17, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Once upon a time, publishing was the domain of large corporations. Then came desktop publishing and the tools to produce a book shrank from the cost of an aircraft carrier to the price tag of a PT boat. Now, small publishers on the bleeding edge of technology are fomenting a revolution that may change the publishing market forever. Open source publishing tools, long derided as not being ready for battle, are proving themselves in the trenches of small publishing.

If you walked into a production lab of just about any small- to medium-sized publisher, you'd find pretty much the same tools: Photoshop for raster graphics; Illustrator, Freehand, and Corel Draw for vector graphics; InDesign and Xpress for page layout; and Acrobat for creating camera-ready output. Together these programs cost well over a thousand dollars, and any publisher who wants to play has to pony up. The book buyer pays at the point of sale.

What makes book production expensive isn't just the cost of software. Proprietary publishing tools run on proprietary operating systems -- Mac OS and Windows. They require high-powered hardware. They might even have intrusive product activation "features" or draconian licensing restrictions. In short, publishing is like most other markets -- it's very close to a D-Day invasion by open source forces.

Linux lubbers

John Bartlett owns and operates Bartlett Publishing, which puts out approximately four titles per year in programming, business, and ... religion. Huh? Those don't go together, do they? This is the strength of small publishing, to bring together the disparate genres that make up a particular publisher's passion.

Bartlett is a true believer, in God and Linux. He chose open source tools because he "believes in free information." He uses the DocBook DTD, running the manuscript through OpenJade with a heavily customized version of Norman Walsh's stylesheets. "Using OpenJade and Norman Walsh's stylesheets to typeset gives me a huge advantage in both costs to produce a book and time to market. In particular, with DocBook, an index is amazingly easy to produce," says Bartlett. Post-processing of the PDF is done with Perl's Text::PDF module and Adobe Acrobat for complex work. A professional graphic artist produces the cover and Bartlett does post-processing with the GIMP. Finally he uploads the finished materials to CafePress or LightningSource.

Bartlett's recommendation of the open source tools he uses is unequivocating. "DocBook makes your book look professional with very little effort. The combination of DocBook and a good cover artist gives you very professional results with a minimum of time and money."

John Culleton of Able Typesetters and Indexers provides services for small- and self-publishers with a completely Linux-based workflow using variants of TeX. First, he keys in and corrects the source text in Gvim. Culleton compiles the text to PDF with ConTeXt or pdfTeX and views the output in Xpdf. He also uses various other bits and pieces: grep; the Ghostscript ps2ascii translator; pfaedit (FontForge); PSUtils for brochures, makeindex for indices, and some custom macros and scripts. He does image processing in the GIMP and has recently begun using Scribus for book covers because it can handle ICC profiles and produce CMYK output.

Culleton makes two points about the strengths of open source software. First, "All of these tools are supported by active email lists. I don't have to call an underpaid clerk.... I get superior support from users and maintainers of the software." (Ask any XPress user about Quark's customer support. It's infamous.) Second, when Donald Knuth backed away from TeX, others picked up the torch. Development continued and TeX is still going strong. Meanwhile, in the proprietary world, PageMaker is dying a slow and painful death and is no longer the behemoth of book production; FrameMaker has been losing ground as well. Adobe now pushes InDesign. QuarkXpress went years between updates on the Mac, still the dominant desktop publishing platform. With proprietary software, Culleton says, "[You] face the potential discontinuance of the product, just like users of the once excellent WordPerfect have found their own purgatory -- the Curse of Corel."

Mac-o-philes

The work flow is a bit rougher in the Mac world. Mac-based senior editor Kevin Walzer of WordTech Communications LLC produces 50 poetry and literary criticism books each year. In the recent past, WordTech used all proprietary software for its workflow. But Microsoft Word is giving way to OpenOffice.org and LaTeX. They're replacing InDesign with Scribus, and Corel PhotoPaint with the GIMP.

Most of the open source offerings are not Aqua-based, but run under Fink. "The Fink packagers and Apple have done a brilliant job in bringing this software over to OS X," says Walzer. "But it seems to run a bit more slowly and certainly doesn't integrate as cleanly into the Aqua environment as native software.... We see a huge difference in the interface between Microsoft Word for OS X and OpenOffice.org that isn't there on Windows."

But in general, Walzer is satisfied with his open source tools. "Scribus was a bit rough when we first used it for cover layout but ... version 1.1.6 supports color mixing, better text editing," says Walzer. "Gimp has proven to be a very able tool. We're still using Word for most of our manuscript formatting. We are planning to experiment with OpenOffice.org and AbiWord (now in a native OS X-Cocoa build) and see if these are compatible or offer improvements." LaTeX is a powerful tool but has a very steep learning curve, and thus WordTech is moving slowly on that front. Vector graphics are a more of a challenge; WordTech hasn't found any of the open source vector-editing programs, such as SodiPodi, to be equivalent in power to Corel Draw. "We are still using CD for vector art development."

Windows on open source publishing

Many of the same open source tools that run on Linux have been ported to Windows. Whil Hentzen of Hentzenwerke Publishing Inc. runs a cross-platform shop. About two-thirds of his mostly freelance staff is on Windows, and the other third is on Linux. "We start in Word 97 or OpenOffice.org, whichever the author or editor is comfortable with," says Hentzen. "We have fairly unsophisticated needs -- text, figures, a few tables. The neat thing is that it's transparent. I was using Word on Windows and then OpenOffice.org on Linux. No one knew I'd changed. OpenOffice.org plays well with others."

PDFs created in OpenOffice.org go straight to Hentzenwerke's offset printer and right into their machines. Once the printer figured out exactly the right settings, it was less work than when Hentzenwerke used Adobe Acrobat and Distiller. Perhaps the best aspect? Hentzen doesn't need heavy duty hardware, "Our computers were getting creaky running the Windows stuff. They run the Linux programs just fine."

The future

It is harder than ever to "get published" by the big guys in New York. There are now only five big publishing conglomerates increasingly focused on double-digit profits in a shrinking market. Big New York Publishers (BNYPs) no longer put out books because they are good, or important, or of lasting literary value. BNYPs see, at most, 35% of the cover price of any given book and about half of that goes to printing costs. They want -- and can afford -- only blockbusters.

Anything that brings down the cost of production makes it possible for large publishers to take a few more chances on a few more books. Open source tools mean more opportunity for authors of all stripes. Open source tools lower the barriers to entry. More self-publishers and more small publishers in business -- and profitable because of lower costs -- widens the market for books of all kinds. This is an increase to freedom of expression across the board. Instead of just the same old same old King, Jordan, and Roberts, new voices get heard.

If you like to write -- or read -- that is very exciting.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Open source cracks publishing wide open

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Sodipodi

Posted by: Alex Combas on June 18, 2004 05:11 AM
What about inkspace?
It seems much more progresive than sodipodi, has clear milestones, and even seems to be reaching them.

#

Re:Sodipodi

Posted by: Jonathan Bartlett on June 18, 2004 05:21 AM
I've always wondered how OpenOffice Draw compared. I'm not an artist, so my use of these tools is purely recreational, but I'm curious what others think of OO.o Draw.

#

Re:Sodipodi

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 20, 2004 11:29 PM
I'm not a publisher, just an end user. I use Gimp, and although I still haven't figured out how to draw a straight line, it's still very useful for my needs. And I've used Photoshop (5.5, 5, 4) as well. Photoshop was more intuitive for me (I actually used 5 and 5.5 before using 4 on another computer) for some work, and Gimp has some getting used to, but it is good enough for me now.

The article mentioned raster graphics, and vector graphics. The last time I read an article that reviewed gimp/sodipodi and other FOSS compared to Adobe tools (probably right here on Newsforge), raster and vector graphics were mentioned again, and at that time, I took a quick look at Sodipodi, but I couldn't figure out what to use it for, as compared to the Gimp. The earlier article also mentioned a few other FOSS apps, and their proprietary equivalents, and I was able to find and look at one of the other FOSS apps mentioned, in my running Linux distro, although I can't remember the name of it right now.

Can someone provide a layman's explanation of what vector graphics and raster graphics tools are/do? An explanation that provides examples (explained, I'm not asking you to go out and design something) that illustrate what the differences are, and what/why each would be used in different applications, would be greatly appreciated.

Very nice article btw.

#

Re:Sodipodi

Posted by: Jonathan Bartlett on June 21, 2004 06:22 AM
"and although I still haven't figured out how to draw a straight line"

Using pencil or paintbrush, click one point. Then, hold down (can't remember if it's control or shift) and click another point.

"Can someone provide a layman's explanation of what vector graphics and raster graphics tools are/do?"

With raster graphics, you have a canvas that is so many pixels wide by so many pixels high. Everything you do is in terms of pixels. In vector graphics, you store the math of what you are doing - the logical elements. For example, if I draw a line in GIMP, after the line has been drawn GIMP does not remember that it was a line, it's just a series of pixels that happen to have a certain color. Likewise with circles and other shapes. If there's a curve on the GIMP, and we scale our graphic larger, GIMP doesn't know that those pixels represent a curve, so it can't scale it bigger without becoming blocky.

In vector graphics, if you draw a circle, a circle is remembered. Therefore, if you change the size of your canvas, the program can still get your circle EXACTLY right. You can still interact with your circle as a circle, and not just some pixels.

#

Cost discussion incomplete

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 18, 2004 05:24 AM

The largest cost in any publishing enterprise is people, not software. Saving a few bucks on software is false economy in the publishing industry. Publishers who survive do so largely by getting lots of work done with a few, well-equipped, highly competent people. The Adobe and Quark tools are so far superior in ease of use, integration and features that nearly any shop can quickly earn back the cost difference.



There are good reasons to use open source tools. Those reasons include open data formats, lack of vendor lock-in, etc. Stick to those arguments, because right now and for the foreseeable future, the cost arguments won't make any economic sense.

#

Re:Cost discussion incomplete

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 18, 2004 06:52 AM
It doesn't make much difference to an established company but it does lower the barrier of entry so almost anyone can do it.

If you have to spend $5,000 to set up a publishing company instead of $15,000 (due to software licening) it make a big difference.

Basically more people can do it so more people do. More people fail but you still end up with more people overall.

#

Re:Cost discussion incomplete

Posted by: Jonathan Bartlett on June 18, 2004 01:12 PM
Actually, you can start a publishing company for under $500 if you want, now that print-on-demand is viable in the marketplace.

In fact, I started with pretty much $40 sent to CafePress. I earned my startup money with early editions of my Programming from the Ground Up book, which I used to buy ISBNs, pay my cover designer, and do marketing for this book and other books on my "up and coming" list.

So yeah, I couldn't have started without the low barrier to entry. But even past that, the DocBook tools make putting together a quality book very simple - much more so than the other tools.

#

Re:Cost discussion incomplete

Posted by: Jonathan Bartlett on June 18, 2004 01:09 PM
Did you read the article? Bartlett Publishing (my company) uses the DocBook tools _because_ it is faster. It is amazingly simple to come out with a professionally laid-out book using DocBook and its related toolchain.

John Culleton, who was also interviewed (and I know a little bit from publishing mailing lists), uses TeX also because it is faster AND because it produces better results.

So yes, cost DOES make a huuuge difference in this area, because the open-source tools are actually quite a bit ahead of everything else. The only exception is cover design, where proprietary tools still have a bit of a leg-up.

I believe my cover designer uses Macromedia Fireworks. GIMP is great for the post-processing stuff I do with the covers, but for actually making cover art, the proprietary tools win. GIMP is pretty useless beyond about 20 layers, and the vector tools aren't quite up to snuff. But they are getting there.

#

Cool, but...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 18, 2004 01:09 PM
This is great news, to be sure, hearing about book publishers using open source (and especially my favorite, Scribus), but now I want to hear about magazine publishers!

#

anybody still use pagemaker?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 19, 2004 01:19 AM
I have a tech writer friend who swears that publishers and the writting biz ONLY uses pagemaker. Maybe that was the case a long time ago?

#

Re:anybody still use pagemaker?

Posted by: Jonathan Bartlett on June 19, 2004 08:27 PM
I don't think that was ever true. Perhaps in the publishing company he worked in, but definitely not everywhere. It's popular, but it's not the only thing used. As far as proprietary apps go, I think InDesign might be beating it out, and possibly Quark, too.

One thing to note is that O'Reilly, for instance, uses DocBook (probably others). TeX is still the dominant typesetting software for Mathemeticians. In fact, <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1584883472/freeeducation-20" title="amazon.com">this Encyclopedia of Mathematics</a amazon.com> was written entirely in TeX.

Everybody uses different tools. The only thing becoming a near-universal standard is PDF for the page interiors, and even that is not completely universal.

#

Re:anybody still use pagemaker?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 20, 2004 08:56 AM
Most tech writing shops use FrameMaker, not PageMaker. Even design firms are moving away from PM and adopting InDesign.

#

Why did you choose CafePress?

Posted by: liquidshaneo on June 22, 2004 10:46 PM

Just curious why you chose CafePress as your POD publisher as there seems to be so many POD publishers out there. What criteria did you use and why did CafePress come out on top?



Shane

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya