Re: Better Xdm logo screen (Re: Doubts building a new package...)

[Emilio Lopes]

> "LW" == Lars Wirzenius wrote:

LW> For those of you who have some free time, perhaps designing a flashy
LW> xdm login screen would be a better project.  That is, something more
LW> sexy than the default criss-cross background with a dull, white
LW> "login:/Password:" window in the middle.  It should be optional to
LW> use this (not everyone's machine is idle when displaying the xdm login
LW> screen, and a fancy one can use up a lot of memory), so it should be
LW> a separate package.

I can try to do that. I'll have a look at xbanner.

Also, a friend is using a tk script to do something like this. But,
probably, we don't want it to depend on tcl/tk, do we?

LW> The Linux 2.0 penguin should definitely be part of it.

Of course. I loved that penguin!
LW> I don't remember if Debian has a logo, but if it does, that should also
LW> be part of it.

We had that baby Gnu, but that was in the old times...

Ciao, Emilio.

-- 
 Emilio C. Lopes 
 FINPE, Instituto de Fisica  E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Universidade de Sao Paulo   Phone : (+55 11) 818-6724 (Voice)
 Caixa Postal 66318  (+55 11) 818-6715 (Fax)
 05389-970  Sao Paulo - SP
 BRAZIL

Re: Doubts building a new package...

[Rob Browning]

"Susan G. Kleinmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> PNG is a bandwidth-conservative, patent-free replacement for GIF (as well 
> as many uses of TIFF).  If you want to use it, you might be interested in 
> looking at:
>  http://www.boutell.com/boutell/png/

Thanks, Susan, that's what I meant to say :>

--
Rob

Re: Better Xdm logo screen (Re: Doubts building a new package...)

[Rob Browning]

Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [ Note: I read this mailing list.  There is no need to CC me on replies,
>   unless it is _really_ urgent.  I pay for my PPP connections.  Thanks. ]

Hmm, what if the debian lists had a Reply-to header that was the list
in question.  That would cut down on unintentional replies.  Or is
that a violation of standard practice?
 
> For those of you who have some free time, perhaps designing a flashy
> xdm login screen would be a better project.  That is, something more
> sexy than the default criss-cross background with a dull, white
> "login:/Password:" window in the middle.  It should be optional to

This sounds like a good idea, but unfortunately, I'm not sure it's
important enough that someone'll be willing to take the time to do
it.  It would be good PR though.

> The Linux 2.0 penguin should definitely be part of it.

Yes.

> I don't remember if Debian has a logo, but if it does, that should also
> be part of it.

No, we used to use the baby GNU, but, well...

Anyway, I had a friend (graphic artist) that was working on something,
but I wouldn't hold your breath.  He's busy too.

--
Rob

Better Xdm logo screen (Re: Doubts building a new package...)

[Lars Wirzenius]

[ Note: I read this mailing list.  There is no need to CC me on replies,
  unless it is _really_ urgent.  I pay for my PPP connections.  Thanks. ]

Jon Rabone:
> It's also available separately on (at least) the funet mirror sites in the
> same directory as the 2.0 source. I don't think we really need this, but
> if you've got the time to fill...

I doubt there is much need for a linux-logo package (but if one is made,
the proposed name linux-2.0-logo is distracting, due to the version number
in the middle -- linux-logo should do equally well).

For those of you who have some free time, perhaps designing a flashy
xdm login screen would be a better project.  That is, something more
sexy than the default criss-cross background with a dull, white
"login:/Password:" window in the middle.  It should be optional to
use this (not everyone's machine is idle when displaying the xdm login
screen, and a fancy one can use up a lot of memory), so it should be
a separate package.

The Linux 2.0 penguin should definitely be part of it.

I don't remember if Debian has a logo, but if it does, that should also
be part of it.

Imagine a roomful of student workstation, all of them displaying
Linux and Debian logos.  Any students working in that room every day
will feel that their Red Hat systems at home lack that special something
and will soon switch to Debian instead.

Re: Doubts building a new package...

[Susan G. Kleinmann]

> On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Rob Browning wrote:
> 
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Emilio Lopes) writes:
> > 
> > > 2- The logo itself is a gif file. Is it non-free? I can convert it to
> > >a jpeg file if needed.
> > 
> > Don't know about the other stuff, but for this I'd recommend png, not
> > jpeg.  

PNG is a bandwidth-conservative, patent-free replacement for GIF (as well 
as many uses of TIFF).  If you want to use it, you might be interested in 
looking at:
 http://www.boutell.com/boutell/png/

Cheers,
Susan Kleinmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Doubts building a new package...

[Jon Rabone]

> AD> I'm not convinced we need the package at all. 
> AD> After all, you get the image with the kernel sources anyway.
> 
> Sure? I didn't know that. It's really hidden in that "Documentation"
> dir...
> Anyway, maybe someone who does not want the sources may want the logo?
> 
> ECL.

It's also available separately on (at least) the funet mirror sites in the
same directory as the 2.0 source. I don't think we really need this, but
if you've got the time to fill...

Jon

Re: Doubts building a new package...

[Austin Donnelly]

On Mon, 17 Jun 1996, Rob Browning wrote:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Emilio Lopes) writes:
> 
> > 2- The logo itself is a gif file. Is it non-free? I can convert it to
> >a jpeg file if needed.
> 
> Don't know about the other stuff, but for this I'd recommend png, not
> jpeg.  As I understand it gif's lossless, and so is png, and I think
> png was meant to be the replacement for gif, so it'd be an appropriate
> translation.  That said, I've never messed with png myself, but I've
> been planning to start using it when appropriate.

I'm not convinced we need the package at all.

After all, you get the image with the kernel sources anyway.

Austin

Re: Doubts building a new package...

[Emilio Lopes]

> "AD" == Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

AD> I'm not convinced we need the package at all.

AD> After all, you get the image with the kernel sources anyway.

Sure? I didn't know that. It's really hidden in that "Documentation"
dir...

Anyway, maybe someone who does not want the sources may want the logo?

ECL.

Re: Doubts building a new package...

[Rob Browning]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Emilio Lopes) writes:

> 2- The logo itself is a gif file. Is it non-free? I can convert it to
>a jpeg file if needed.

Don't know about the other stuff, but for this I'd recommend png, not
jpeg.  As I understand it gif's lossless, and so is png, and I think
png was meant to be the replacement for gif, so it'd be an appropriate
translation.  That said, I've never messed with png myself, but I've
been planning to start using it when appropriate.

--
Rob

Doubts building a new package...

[Emilio Lopes]

Hi,

I'm planning to do a package, erh, hm, ... it's the Linux-2.0 Logo
package :-).

But I have some doubts:

1- There is some trouble with dpkg naming it linux-2.0-logo_1.0-0.all.deb?

2- The logo itself is a gif file. Is it non-free? I can convert it to
   a jpeg file if needed.

3- Where should I put the logo? /usr/lib/images?

4- Should it "depends" or simply "recommends" X11-image-viewer? I got
   this name from the xv package but it is not listed in
   virtual-package-names-list.text. I think it's a good idea to
   standardize this. Packages like pbmplus should then use this.

Thanks for your ideas.

Emilio.

-- 
 Emilio C. Lopes 
 FINPE, Instituto de Fisica  E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Universidade de Sao Paulo   Phone : (+55 11) 818-6724 (Voice)
 Caixa Postal 66318  (+55 11) 818-6715 (Fax)
 05389-970  Sao Paulo - SP
 BRAZIL