GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Ken » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



So how many prepress houses are out there using this up-an-coming OS
for fileserving and other tasks.  I noticed that Helios isn't
currently supporting the platform, are they planning to?  Is any
mainstream graphics apps manufacturer?  Are folks using gimp to create
serious graphic work for offset CMYK?  Inquiring minds want to know.

-K
--

  Media      | www.csuchico.edu/~griffin | guns and planes cannot stop him
    Monster  |                           | tokyo is ablaze           -RHFR

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by John Doher » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> So how many prepress houses are out there using this up-an-coming OS
> for fileserving and other tasks.  I noticed that Helios isn't
> currently supporting the platform, are they planning to?  Is any
> mainstream graphics apps manufacturer?  Are folks using gimp to create
> serious graphic work for offset CMYK?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Last time I checked, GIMP didn't have any concept of CMYK.

Corel intends to port their apps to Linux, I believe.

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by u.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





>> So how many prepress houses are out there using this up-an-coming OS
>> for fileserving and other tasks.  I noticed that Helios isn't
>> currently supporting the platform, are they planning to?  Is any
>> mainstream graphics apps manufacturer?  Are folks using gimp to create
>> serious graphic work for offset CMYK?  Inquiring minds want to know.

>Last time I checked, GIMP didn't have any concept of CMYK.

Helios probably already has ported to Linux, but they're waiting for a
good moment to release it, I guess. The people who sell you Helios today
are the same people who pop in a Sun with it - they are not happy if in
the future they'll have to pop in an Intel PC. Makes for significantly
lower earnings ;)

Thus, I think Helios will ship a Linux version only when their
competitors do and they really have no other choice.

All of this is pure speculation, of course.

Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Lee Blevi » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Snip

I still have trouble with netatalk. The problem with these user
supported s/w's is the support. We're our own worst enemy.

I've tried every suggested approach but netatalk still converts carriage
returns and line feeds, rendering my postscript files useless. This
prevents me from considering it as an os for a server in prepress.

I sure wish I could fix this.

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by John Doher » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



| I've tried every suggested approach but netatalk still converts carriage
| returns and line feeds, rendering my postscript files useless. This
| prevents me from considering it as an os for a server in prepress.
|
| I sure wish I could fix this.

You can (and Aandi Inston already told you how). For netatalk-1.4b2, find
the file named ./etc/afpd/Makefile (where . is whatever directory you have
the source files in), and find the line in that file that reads

  -DAPPLCNAME -DCRLF # -DDOWNCASE

and change that line so it reads

  -DAPPLCNAME # -DCRLF -DDOWNCASE

and then recompile and reinstall.

Best regards, and happy holidays.

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Mark Ogles » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>Thus, I think Helios will ship a Linux version only when their
>competitors do and they really have no other choice.

They never ported over to NT, even though the competion did. They have
ported over to OSX Server though. According to them-they are more worried
about performace than how many copies of NT Microsoft can ship.

--
Mark Oglesby

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Aandi Inst » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>Snip

>I still have trouble with netatalk. The problem with these user
>supported s/w's is the support. We're our own worst enemy.

>I've tried every suggested approach but netatalk still converts carriage
>returns and line feeds, rendering my postscript files useless. This
>prevents me from considering it as an os for a server in prepress.

Did you recompile it without -DCRLF as I suggested? That fixed it for
me - you may be doing something wrong.
---------------------------------------

Imposition and booklets for PDF - http://www.quite.com/imposing/
 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by u.. » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





>>Thus, I think Helios will ship a Linux version only when their
>>competitors do and they really have no other choice.

>They never ported over to NT, even though the competion did. They have
>ported over to OSX Server though. According to them-they are more worried
>about performace than how many copies of NT Microsoft can ship.

Well, people who think about whether they should buy a Sun or a Linux-PC,
they'll never even consider an OSX-Server. So, OSX is no competition for
the folks trying to sell Sun servers. Rather, it is for those who don't
know much about computers, but they know if it has an Apple logo they'll
be able to cope with it.

JMO of course,

Ulrich
--
Ulrich Mayring

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Lee Blevi » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


Didn't work.

I tried removing the -DCRLF and commenting it out, no change. I removed
the /usr/local/atalk directories to be sure they were recreated. I tried
commenting out and uncommenting the options in Applevolumes.system.
Still the same.

What am I missing here?

I am using 1.4b2.

Is there an official readme on turning off the crlf translation?

Could someone point me to the acutal source code file that has the
translation code in it? I'd be happy at this point with modifying it so
it translates CR to CR and LF to LF so I get no translation.

I also have to wonder who thought the idea of translating was a good
idea. Didn't they understand the importance of postscript to a Mac
environment?




> | I've tried every suggested approach but netatalk still converts carriage
> | returns and line feeds, rendering my postscript files useless. This
> | prevents me from considering it as an os for a server in prepress.
> |
> | I sure wish I could fix this.

> You can (and Aandi Inston already told you how). For netatalk-1.4b2, find
> the file named ./etc/afpd/Makefile (where . is whatever directory you have
> the source files in), and find the line in that file that reads

>   -DAPPLCNAME -DCRLF # -DDOWNCASE

> and change that line so it reads

>   -DAPPLCNAME # -DCRLF -DDOWNCASE

> and then recompile and reinstall.

> Best regards, and happy holidays.

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Lee Blevi » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


snip

> Did you recompile it without -DCRLF as I suggested? That fixed it for
> me - you may be doing something wrong.
> ---------------------------------------

> Imposition and booklets for PDF - http://www.quite.com/imposing/

I did. I put the "#" exactly one space in front of the -DCRLF in the
/user/local/atalk/etc/afpd/Makefile. I even tried deleting the -DCRLF.

I checked the Makefile (main one) for the DESTDIR, it is
/usr/local/atalk.

I deleted all the files and directories in /usr/local/atalk and saw that
they were recreated after the make and make install.

I checked the date of the afpd and atalkd to insure they were the ones
created at the most recent make.

I check my rc.local to be sure I was calling the rc.atalk that is in the
/usr/local/atalk/etc dir.

I rebooted after a make/make install.

If I'm doing something wrong I'd sure like to know what.

I'm using Freebsd 2.2.7 and netatalk1.4b2+asun2.1.1

The words that are ringing in my head right now come from John Doherty
who lambasted me a while back about messing with dicey solutions when he
suggested I just get over it and get a real server.

I think John is/was right. I've wasted so many man hours on a user
supported-sometimes it works-sometimes it doesn't OS that it is starting
to become clear to me why Sun gets the money they do.

I will still continue playing with this because it's interesting to me
but I give up hope at this point that it is a viable solution for a
professional prepress department. I have to move on, time is money.

I certainly appreciate any and all help I've received but, it remains
broken. If anybody can see in my statements above, how I could have
overlooked some simple thing, I'd owe you bigtime.

This is a major problem. The contents of a postscript file have been
altered by simply copying them to a server disk. That is scary.

And to the programmers of netatalk I hope you make it much easier to
turn this off. PostScript is the backbone of commercial prepress and
PostScript files are TEXT files.

Altering the contents of any file is in my opinion a bad thing. A server
should remain neutral in file handling and just take the data and store
it. This concept of translating the line endings in a PostScript file
can't have any good effects for anybody. There have been many dos to
unix utilities that can handle this on a file by file demand. To have it
the default in a networking os is a failure by the original programmers
to observe the importance that we as users place on knowing our data
hasn't been altered.

To anyone considering using netatalk I caution, beware. The first time
your postscript file won't rip and spits out an "offending command:" you
will have to wonder if you are a victim of this problem.

I believe open source products have a place in our future. I really
believe that this will eventually corrected. I for one, can't wait.

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Lance Levse » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> > So how many prepress houses are out there using this up-an-coming OS
> > for fileserving and other tasks.  I noticed that Helios isn't
> > currently supporting the platform, are they planning to?  Is any
> > mainstream graphics apps manufacturer?  Are folks using gimp to create
> > serious graphic work for offset CMYK?  Inquiring minds want to know.

> Last time I checked, GIMP didn't have any concept of CMYK.

> Corel intends to port their apps to Linux, I believe.

        We use linux as a Blackmagic Server. (poor mans common rip) NT
as a file server, Sun as OPI and imposition server, mac and NT as unit
RIPS, and a unix (not sure which) as a RIP for colour laser. I don't
know about anything client side in Linux that's serious.

-Lance

--

No, i don't have a homepage.    | but why clutter up the world.

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Aandi Inst » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>I rebooted after a make/make install.

>If I'm doing something wrong I'd sure like to know what.

It certainly sounds like you did all the right things. That is
definitely the fix. The mystery is why it didn't take. I would have
used a "make clean" instead of removing files (in the afp directory).
I assume you did remove both afpd and all the .o files.

Quote:

>I'm using Freebsd 2.2.7 and netatalk1.4b2+asun2.1.1

I did this on Linux but it sounds similar.

Quote:

>The words that are ringing in my head right now come from John Doherty
>who lambasted me a while back about messing with dicey solutions when he
>suggested I just get over it and get a real server.

>I think John is/was right. I've wasted so many man hours on a user
>supported-sometimes it works-sometimes it doesn't OS that it is starting
>to become clear to me why Sun gets the money they do.

You have identified a critical weakness of the Linux model. For all
the enthusiasm techies have for it, a fix which is undocumented and
requires messing with makefiles is no sort of fix at all for the
average user.

I don't know if the Linux enthusiasts believe everyone will turn into
programmers just because they have Linux - that seems to be the only
model that works. Often, Open Source seems to be a great way of
bypassing the things commercial developers are obliged to do - make it
work, write documentation, provide support - all the dull stuff.

The model that "someone else provides support and you pay for it" is
fine - but who is doing that (and I don't mean coming in as a
consultant)? Who is providing a cost effective "we support it all"
telephone support and hand-holding model for Linux and all the add-ons
you might need. I am not saying this isn't happening - but how does
the average user find out about it? They do not want to do research to
find support.  The Red Hat installation support I received certainly
didn't seem to be at the level of "hold on I'll check the code". It
seemed more to be, "we agree with your diagnosis, it doesn't work".

Don't get me wrong, I'd love Linux to succeed. But most of the
arguments I see are rooted in the "programmers writing for
programmers" model. You are not going to increase the average level of
computer competency of the average computer user, and Linux is just
too hard for the average user to get working right.  

Microsoft may yet come to the rescue, if Windows 2000 is also too hard
for the average user to get working right! Some would say Windows 98
is already there...

The other argument (that Linux is free) is of zero importance if you
have to waste more than a day or two messing with it. In a business
that would have paid for NT server or Unix several times over. How
long before Ethershare would have paid for itself...?

Quote:

>I will still continue playing with this because it's interesting to me
>but I give up hope at this point that it is a viable solution for a
>professional prepress department. I have to move on, time is money.

---------------------------------------

Imposition and booklets for PDF - http://www.quite.com/imposing/
 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Ian Kemmi » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



says...

Quote:

>The model that "someone else provides support and you pay for it" is
>fine - but who is doing that (and I don't mean coming in as a
>consultant)? Who is providing a cost effective "we support it all"
>telephone support and hand-holding model for Linux and all the add-ons
>you might need. I am not saying this isn't happening - but how does
>the average user find out about it? They do not want to do research to
>find support.  The Red Hat installation support I received certainly
>didn't seem to be at the level of "hold on I'll check the code". It
>seemed more to be, "we agree with your diagnosis, it doesn't work".

The model still has its flaws, however.  Wherever support is a profit centre
(and not just in the GNU world, nor even just the software world) there is an
inexorable pull towards shipping broken products and fixing them at a profit
later.  [I even have anecdotal evidence that the last bug fix I submitted for
GCC was not incorporated into the distributed source precisely because fixing
it was so profitable -- but then I'm just a bitter old git....]  Even if the
engineers make sincere efforts to resist this pull, their managers won't.

The ideal would be software that was as cheap as possible at the point of
delivery, but for which support is free, unlimited and eternal.  Any company
which can survive such punishing support costs for more than a short period
must, a priori, be shipping products which work reliably out of the box:-)

Of course, we live in the real world, and I'm currently battling managers
who've just *increased*, not *decreased* 5D's own support charges:-(

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ian Kemmish                   18 Durham Close, Biggleswade, Beds SG18 8HZ, UK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Behind every successful organisation stands one person who knows the secret
of how to keep the managers away from anything truly important.

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Lee Blevi » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00


snip

Quote:> I assume you did remove both afpd and all the .o files.

DING!

I will test this monday. I have been assuming that a make recreates
everything in the source directory. I will delete the source directory
and untar the archive and try it from the top.

If this turns out to be the issue, I owe you one.

 
 
 

GNU/Linux in the Prepress World

Post by Aandi Inst » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>> I assume you did remove both afpd and all the .o files.

>I will test this monday. I have been assuming that a make recreates
>everything in the source directory. I will delete the source directory
>and untar the archive and try it from the top.

Normally make will rebuild only what it has to rebuild. For instance,
if you change a .c file, it is compiled to its .o file. The executable
is now out of date and so that is relinked.  If you change a .h file,
then all the .c files that need it are recompiled...and so on. This
only happens if the Makefile says so - Makefile's are not magic, they
are hard work and rarely 100% accurate.

But there is one case where a change definitely won't cause a
recompile - changing the Makefile itself!
---------------------------------------

Imposition and booklets for PDF - http://www.quite.com/imposing/