Actually, you *are* the problem here. Take Office's file format, for example. It's changed with almost every version, most of which were backwards incompatible with one another to the point of being an entirely new format. You'd think that .docX would solve that, -snip, remaining useless drivel removed-.
If people stopped using programs (open or closed source) that don't provide either an open standard for their data
-snip: coulda woulda shouda drivel removed-
You really don't get it do you ?
My publisher asks for MS word documents in either word 2003 or later format , with links to the images. Images need to be supplied as vector art in EMS format. They prefer to have an illustrator compatible source so they can easily import my document in the pre-press software. if an .AI file is found they will read that and the pre-press software (InDesign) will use that to render the artwork in better quality.
So what do i do tell them to bugger off and give them an openoffice document with inkscape pictures instead ?
The answer will be : we can't read that. If we can't read it we can't publish it and you won't get any money off it. Fact of life. live with it. If my publisher would ask me to supply source material written in Latex i would use that. If they would ask OpenOffice format i would use that. But they don't. They want MS Office 2003 or later.
Office costs 295$ , I bought CS5 master suite as i wanted to upgrade my old Premiere and wanted to have PDF creater and Photoshop + Lightroom as well. Upgrade cost was 2400$. First book i had published paid both tools three times over. The other four books i had published basically cost me nothing in tools. i had the tools.
What is there not to understand about that? You can harp on about closed formats and convoluted formats all you want until you have a long beard. If your car needs gas to run , pissing in the tank won't make it move. You can argue until the cows come home that pee has the same color as gasoline so it should work , and harping on about how OPEC controls prices. None of that will make the car move.
I gotta go places. Fill up with gasoline and off i go. (two more months and it will be full electric. Bye OPEC 
)
Actually, I *do* get it. I'm an author too, currently writing a book for McGraw-Hill's TAB label. As long as your editor can open the document in Word with basic markup intact, it doesn't really matter what you wrote it in! That text is just being copied/pasted into layout software and being arranged by hand.
Pretty much any modern word processor these days can save a file in .docX format which will open in word. The trick is opening a .docX file saved from Word in any other software. Hell, you don't even need to save it on .docX format; .RTF or even .HTML would work (and open fine in Word) for the type of formatting you need to submit chapters to your editor!
As for Inkscape, I just took a complex .AI file, opened it in Inkscape, made a change, exported it in .SVG, .EPS and .AI then re-opened it in AI and guess what? All three files look exactly the same. There is no reason whatsoever you can't do your drawings in Inkscape, Sketch or any other Open Source/Third Party vector image software and send it to your editor as an .SVG file, I assure you the production department is smart enough to convert it (if it even needs to be) before pulling it into InDesign.
Hell, you could do your diagrams and schematics in any EDA/CAD program you want and print them straight to a PDF and convert that straight to an .AI or SVG file with some (free!) software really easily.
I use some great software to write with called Scrivener. It lets me organize my entire manuscript into a hierarchy. I can store PDF datasheets and any other research material right inside, link those items to specific pages, attach extensive notes or footnotes to specific sections, have it automatically generate outlines and tons more stuff I can't even think of right now. It's sooooo much better than Word for writing books, something Word was never designed to do.
Now here comes the neat part, there is no concept of exporting your document. Instead, you "compile" your manuscript. You have fine grained control over everything, from filling in placeholders you set to what's included or excluded and what format it's outputted as. Just need a ToC with footnotes? No problem. Want to compile simultaneously in .docX, Kindle, ePub, iBooks Author, PDF and HTML formats with fine grained control over each? Easy as cake.
Using the right tool for the job is important and Word is very much the wrong tool for writing long books, *especially* technical books. You may need all the complex features of AI or the ability to run expensive plugins, but most people don't. Following our tool analogy, Adobe CS is like a full Snap On tool chest, while Inkscape/Sketch and GIMP/Pixelmator is a box of Craftsman tools. They're both tools and will both work for 99% of people, but the Snap On chest costs $30,000 and contains every socket, bit and driver size there is (most of which only an Master Mechanic will ever use) while the toolbox of Craftsman stuff costs $100 and has a few dozen screwdrivers and pliers plus metric and imperial socket sets. Chances are, if you ever need anything outside this basic set you can either go find the specific tool you need or improvise.
As for pissing in the gas tank, you explained that one (and contradicted yourself in the process) for me! If my car took gas to run but I didn't want to use gas, I'd find an alternative mode of transport. Either public (bus/subway/taxi) or private (electric or bio-diesel car/bike). You switching to an electric car to get away from OPEC is contradictory to sticking with bad software when there are better solutions.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
