On Jul 19, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Josh Ockert wrote:
Go ahead. Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to
consider any position different than your own. I am at least
willing to continue to discuss it.
No. I have no objection to your position. I have an objection to your
complete lack of disrespect.
I know I'D be angry at people who show an utter lack of disrepect, you
punk! (ha ha..touche'!)
You are a troll. You go on and on,
misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just
generally adding nothing to the discussion.
That's kind of odd since I remember Ted giving help on the list a
number of times. Personally the term Troll is becoming rather watered
down, which is a shame...it used to actually mean someone who was out
to do nothing but cause trouble. This is no longer how the word is
used now apparently. It is a generic term used towards anyone with
whom one has a disagreement with online.
One thing I do not understand is why people say things like "you're
deliberately misinterpreting..."..."you're confusing the
issue..."...etc....and not stop, take a breath, and actually spell out
the issue(s) *as you understand them* and ask for clarifications. Get
some common ground on which to communicate. If one is talking about
apples and the other bitching about oranges, at least get that
straightened out. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.
Spell out the issue. Clarify for understanding. Argue and *stay on
topic* until resolved point by point.
Otherwise...quit wasting your time.
Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when
people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked
a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that
his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word.
Except that in that case people were pointing out facts. As you said
in your email, there has been no official vote. So you have no facts.
Technically, votes != facts.
You are in effect contradicting yourself when you say that those in
favor of the new logo ARE in the extreme minority, but then say there
was never any tally of opinions.
Overall, the argument is foolish. I really see why some people keep
their OS projects to themselves for control, if for nothing else than
to keep large groups of people from bitching about something that may
or may not be within the scope of the project's goals to begin with.
Beastie has been associated with FreeBSD for how long now? Since 1.0?
Ronald McDonald...logo, or mascot? Does it really matter? They're
considered one in the same by the public.
There are a number of more-religious-than-not people who had advocated
getting rid of the logoscot of Beastie because he invokes the image of
the "DEVIL". There are many ignoramuses out there who think themselves
experts in using computers because they get an MSCE cert. There was
someone in my own computer science classes who managed to pass with her
four year degree without even knowing what in hell an operating system
was in relation to an application. These people are out there making up
the field of "IT Professionals". Who exactly is qualified to decide
whether or not Beastie should be the logoscot of the Project? The
users who couldn't tell a source code file from a binary? The users
who can configure a DHCP server without glancing at the console? I
would think the Project people would...since they're the ones doing the
project. What they say, goes.
If you don't like it, fork the project with your own
logo/logoscot/motto/t-shirt. What you say at the point, goes.
If you "block the address of anyone who continues on in this manner"
you simply prove my point for me - that the proponents of this
anti-Beastie crusade only care what they want, not what anyone else
wants.
I never said I was anti-Beastie. I'm not. I have many pieces of
pro-Beastie propaganda (look the word up before you start flaming). I
do however think it would be beneficial to have an image that is more
abstract and more suitable to corporate customers. Corporate backing
helps penetration into the market and it sometimes can result in
funding. Refer please to Linux and IBM.
Yeah, because a fat penguin is a wonderful image to portray. On the
other hand, IBM tended to partner with actual corporations with an
actual logo...for themselves. Linux gets benefits from the ensuing
halo effect, but there are particular businesses that get the direct
benefits. I don't see Linspire doing cartwheels because of IBM.
The thing is, FreeBSD as a project may think it's NICE to get
hardware/cash/goodies from businesses, but doesn't set out courting to
get them (note...not on FBSD Project team, these are my observations
and opinions). You wouldn't necessarily WANT it. When you start
hopping into bed with particular businesses, you start making
concessions to them. Then things just start getting messy.
If you're an impartial project you don't need to set out in search of
the niche. FreeBSD is growing in use because it is good to use for
certain applications, and the niche has come to FreeBSD. Theo de Raadt
doesn't give a damn about who uses what with his project; it's art to
him, he does this for himself, and despite his sandpaper personality
OpenBSD has quite a reputation for itself and is a player in the
firewall and secure server field. Wanna donate to him? Go
ahead...he'll say thanks, but if you try to get him to scratch your
back as a tit-for-tat, he'll more than likely give ye' the finger and
sidle off.
FreeBSD doesn't need strings attached via corporate entanglements, in
my opinion.
If people are interested in this with the hearts, go start a business.
Come up with the logo for your business, reselling/supporting FreeBSD.
Get a team to work on developing what you see as shortcomings in
FreeBSD. Then take your corporation and approach other businesses,
explaining that your spiffy OS, based on FreeBSD, is better than XYZ.
Leave FreeBSD to keep developing and chugging away as it has been.
Perhaps nobody that YOU might consider authoratative has ever made a
blanket statement that "Beastie's image is the official FreeBSD
Project's
Logo" however that is nothing more than a semantic argument. His
image has been USED as the logo on just about every CDROM pressing
that Walnut Creek ever sold, and in numerous other websites and
on the FreeBSD Project's website. And I am not talking about the full
color images on the front of the CD jewel cases, I'm talking about the
minature Beastie logo image on the back. Face the fact, Beastie is
the
current logo.
I've never disagreed with you on this. Before. Now I will. There are
generally two types of logos. There is the "Official Logo" which is
often what you see on media packaging. This is usually a combination
of words and a graphic.
Might want to tell that to Nike...
According to dictionary.com, a logo is:
A name, symbol, or trademark designed for easy and definite
recognition, especially one borne on a single printing plate or piece
of type. Short for logogram and logotype. A company emblem or device.
Those responsible for the new logo contest
contend that the logo in this sense of the word is that found at
http://www.freebsd.org/gifs/freebsd_1.gif. I find that I have no
trouble agreeing with them. A logo is what's supposed to give you a
first impression of a product. A logo is about marketing. Advertising.
Viewed in this light, Beastie cannot be the logo because he does not
have any direct link to the FreeBSD project, he is only associated
with it. One does not see Beastie for the first time and automatically
conclude "FreeBSD"!
I know a guy in a yellow jumpsuit and clown makeup just SCREAMS
McDonalds. Or the golden arches sitting alone, without the rest of the
name. Anyone who is familiar at all with FreeBSD for more than a
day's research time knows about Beastie, in graphic if not in name.
Tux...doesn't tell me about Red Hat. Or Linux, for that matter.
Come to think of it, most logos don't have you automaticaly conclude
<MAKER!>. They are associated to each other artificially so you see
one and think of the other. I mean...a logo is a visual representation
of the first few notes of the Jaws theme. Or the bladed glove and
striped sweater...what does that image remind most reasonable US (and
European, perhaps?) people to think of? And a cracked hockey mask...?
Whenever enthusiasts and project sites have gone up for FreeBSD,
Beastie has normally been found somewhere on the page. They just go
together and are associated with each other, and for all intents and
purposes, arguing logo vs. mascot vs. logoscot is merely arguing
semantics. Beastie reminds users of FreeBSD of FreeBSD like a pretty
blue screen reminds them of Windows.
It is this goal that one hopes will be
accomplished with the new logo.
To what end? Try to become someone's corporate bitch? Become
marketing friendly, maybe even more user click-and-drool friendly? Get
it to the point where Windows system admins won't need to know squat
about MX records in order to set up and run a mail server or DNS
server? Maybe we could encourage more growth in that sector of
IT...you know...IT people who know squat...dumb things down a little
more. First step is usually a shiny little LOGO to slap on a business
card.
Let's make the logo something inoffensive too...I mean, we wouldn't
want more of those idiot geek people and their inside jokes about
"daemons" to continue their subversive campaign to have people learn
things. Let's make the logo a puddle of yellow water with a trout
jumping out of it...symbolic of all the pissing matches this argument
as spawned. Unless the whole fish thing would be offensive to Xtians
(http://www.answers.com/topic/xmas).
Now, you may argue that it is time for the FreeBSD Project to change
it's logo - although I have yet to see a logical reason for this -
and I think I and the userbase would have some respect for this
argument if you could use a logical proof. But your argument that
he never was the logo to begin with is nothing more than an attempt
to side-step the discussion of why do we need to change the logo now.
Logical proofs are intended to demonstrate truths. An action in the
future is not a truth. No intelligent person would claim that "FreeBSD
should change its logo" is a theorem to be proven by a system of
postulates and axioms. By virtue of the word "should" it is entirely a
statement of judgment. The reasoning behind this judgment is that
there are many cases in which FreeBSD might have been used that it was
not because some PHB didn't like Beastie. To be honest, considering
corporate culture and the threat of being sued and/or required to take
sensitivity classes, I cannot fault the PHB for not wanting Beastie
around. In fact, if you search the mail archives you'll find people
trying to get rid of the Beastie boot menu because it got them into
trouble at work.
Um...why bother using it at all then? I mean, there's no logical
necessity to having a logo or a mascot...just wipe it down completely.
Purge FreeBSD of the graphics, and get rid of the copyright statements,
etc...make it a pure OS, consisting solely of code necessary to
function. Make it more efficient, the source is smaller, and how can
it be offensive it is stripped of all non-technical aspects?
Forgive my rambling. My point is:
Corporate-friendly politically-correct logo => higher market
penetration => more people using and hopefully contributing to FreeBSD
=> FreeBSD gets better
whereas
Current logo/mascot/whateverthe****youwannacallitidontreallygivea****
=> Some change-resistant people are happy.
Forgive my rambling, but
FreeBSD isn't out to take over the world.
It was simply made to do a job.
It was and is improved and used by geeks who like inside jokes, and
after all, when it comes to free-source operating systems, it is a
geek's party and the market promoters are the crashers.
If you want to use something with fewer headaches than Windows tends to
give, use FreeBSD or Linux. If not, FreeBSD isn't one particular
business's project or pet ho'. The FreeBSD project team gives their
own time for development, and if some businesses as a whole sticks
their nose up at it it's not a reason for FreeBSD leaders to cry
themselves to sleep at night.
If you want to pursue the corporate sponsorship route, start a
corporation, integrate FreeBSD into your project OS, and start
approaching them. Leave FreeBSD out of it.
This is a cowards argument and not one that will generate any respect
among the userbase.
Except those that are tired of having to explain what a daemon is to
people who don't have any appreciation for the internal workings of
the system.
Then don't explain it. RTFM or ignore it. If one is truly tired of
babying the PHBs, they stop coddling and get the job done or move on.
Or reply, "It just is", or have them explain some irrelevant aspect of
their job or hobby. I mean...why a flying multi-colored window for a
logo/symbol? Is it a reference to broken windows, or draftiness? Can
you Mister-Windows-User explain that?
Well...it just is.
Users are by their very nature dense. Ooh...prettier less offensive
logo now! So...tell me....why do I need to "log in" to use it again?
Why do I need to type XYZ to do ABC? Why....
And trying to argue that there's room for both a logo and a mascot
is purely an argument of appeasement.
You've obviously never been in charge of a large organization. The
whole point is appeasement. You're trying to make the least number of
people pissed off.
Wow, that is a formula that just screams that the end result will be
efficient and useful. Because, you know, all good things came out of
committee...
There can only be one recognizable
imagery for The FreeBSD Project, just as for ANY product.
Really? OpenBSD happens to use both a blowfish (Puffy) and a
Beastie-like daemon quite successfully.
Actually, OpenBSD associates with the blowfish more than both
Puffy-and-Beastie-like-daemon. I see Puffy, I think OpenBSD. I see
Daemon-like-creature, I think FreeBSD.
The situation would be analogous to if one day Microsoft decided they
wanted to stop using the Windows logo and the word "Windows" to refer
to their product line. It wouldn't work because the Windows userbase
would simply ignore any alternative attempt at a logo than the flying
Window.
That's funny. In XP they redid their old logo. It's now much more
stylized.
But is it still just a flying window? Since when did "stylized" mean
new logo? If it's still basically the same logo...look at it, stylized
as it is, and still recognize it as belonging to MS Windows, how does
this negate his statement above?
Furthermore, you and some of those sharing your viewpoints have tried
to paint those wishing for a different logo as in the extreme
minority.
They are.
Prove it.
Isn't the burden of proof on the person making the assertion?
And wouldn't it be pointless if it's the Project people who are in
charge that make the final say, unless you spin off a new fork?
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
