On Feb 11, 2005, at 2:18 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
Ted Mittelstaedt writes:
That is so not true that it makes me almost as angry as the original debate.
Maybe getting angry about a mere logo is a bad sign.
Just to sum up things as I understand it...
People want to change the logo from Beastie to something else because Beastie isn't professional enough, so some committers decided to hold a contest for a new logo?
Not really. Someone found a draft of a document suggesting a contest, that was not meant to be published (yet?) and then all hell broke loss.
Out of curiosity, is Beastie so terrible, a logo, that a business would be stupid enough to base their server decisions based on it? Would you care if a business were that dumb...would you actually *want* them using it?
Its not that simple. Several times I have seen very intelligent and competent administrators that would love to run BSD be forced to install linux just because the management of their company liked linux better. A business is rarely stupid, but the people that run the business may often have their priorities messed up.
Someone said people change logos all the time. That's flat out wrong. When a company spends mucho dinero on marketing their logo, they don't just flip around and decide to change their logo that they spent so much money and time getting mindshare with. Have any examples of logos that have constantly changed?
As posten elsewhere in this thread: http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/bell_logos.html
Times and trends change, companies that wants to survive do to.
Windows' logo isn't even a logo. It's a flag of a window pane falling apart in the breeze. I associate windows with broken glass. These things don't seem to hinder Windows from getting massive market share.
Since when did FreeBSD, a project always driven by volunteers and not by commercial matters, suddenly gain a marketing department that is trying to steer FreeBSD into the business sector? Is FreeBSD starting to have marketing dictate technology instead of technology dictate marketing?
I sincerely hope not. But superior technology does not mean we cant be good at marketing too. And seriously, would FreeBSD suffer from a better logo? Would it make it less technology driven? Even if the logo was picture of someones ass, I would still use FreeBSD. If the logo was a superior and beatiful incarnation of everything a logo should be, that would not change my mind either.
Or is this all some sneaky way of saying that Beastie is too much like the Devil and this new logo contest is a way to slip out the connotative Beastie with some other more politically correct symbol, like the drive in American classrooms for Intelligent Design to be taught in science classes ("It's not Creationism! It's not Creationism! It's *science*...")
There are so many reasons beside religious ones why Beastie is a bad logo I dont even know where to start.
It looks bad in print. Its expensive to print. It does not look like something an advanced OS would use as logo. Its hard to reproduce.
On the other hand, its almost perfect as a mascot, which is a very different thing from a logo.
Just asking, since I was largely ignoring the thread but got curious after so MANY posts were made about the topic.
Seems to be a hot topic. Which it wouldnt be if 90% of the posters to this thread didnt missunderstand the whole idea.
-- R
_______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
