Self-Publishing — Not All Bad?

By Daniel Miessler on April 20th, 2005: Tagged as General

As this blog post points out, self-publishing isn’t necessarily all bad. As it turns out, O’Reilly (the animal computer-book Gods) self-published 100 copies of his Learning The Unix Operating System in 1985. Well, today O’Reilly is on the way to becoming one of the biggest names in publishing.

This is interesting because I have several friends who are interested in being published (dead tree format), and I think all of them cringe when they hear the words “self-published”. Perhaps there’s potential for it afterall?

  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • HackerNews
  • StumbleUpon
  • DZone
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • FriendFeed
  • Posterous
  • RSS
  • email
  

View Comments

  • Jason
    Self-publishing is no worse or better than going through a traditional publishing house. The goal, either way, is to sell a ton of books, and neither method offers a garuntee of doing so.
    The stigma with self-publication stems from the idea that "this wasn't good enough to be accepted by a publishing house, so I put it out myself in my own vanity."
    Often, that's very true. Also, many traditonally published books suck, too.
    The methods are equal, ultimately.
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

twitter_icon

Sample Original Content


Information Security

Tutorials and Primers

Culture & Society

Technology & Science

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Miscellaneous

Tools & Projects


Blog Archives