[arch-dev-public] Logo inside packages
Hey guys, What do we plan to do about our logo inside packages? For example, we have a framebuffer logo in kernel26, I think we customized an office suite splash screen (open office?), and perhaps other packages I don't know about. Instead of updating them to the current logo, I suggest we remove them altogether. It kind of deviates from the as-vanilla-as-possible packaging goal, doesn't it? -- Travis
2008/1/14, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org>:
Hey guys,
What do we plan to do about our logo inside packages? For example, we have a framebuffer logo in kernel26, I think we customized an office suite splash screen (open office?), and perhaps other packages I don't know about.
Instead of updating them to the current logo, I suggest we remove them altogether. It kind of deviates from the as-vanilla-as-possible packaging goal, doesn't it?
See previous thread: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/002840.html -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
2008/1/14, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:
2008/1/14, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org>:
Hey guys,
What do we plan to do about our logo inside packages? For example, we have a framebuffer logo in kernel26, I think we customized an office suite splash screen (open office?), and perhaps other packages I don't know about.
Instead of updating them to the current logo, I suggest we remove them altogether. It kind of deviates from the as-vanilla-as-possible packaging goal, doesn't it?
See previous thread: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/002840.html
My subjective summary: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/002975.html -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Jan 14, 2008 10:23 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/1/14, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:
See previous thread: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/002840.html
My subjective summary: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/002975.html
I recall that thread, now that you mention it... I thought I sounded off during that discussion but it looks like I kept silent. I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or update 'em.
2008/1/14, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org>:
On Jan 14, 2008 10:23 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/1/14, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:
See previous thread: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/002840.html
My subjective summary: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/002975.html
I recall that thread, now that you mention it... I thought I sounded off during that discussion but it looks like I kept silent.
I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P
Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or update 'em.
One feature request already opened: http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/9207 -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Jan 14, 2008 9:31 AM, Travis Willard <travis@archlinux.org> wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 10:23 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/1/14, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:
See previous thread: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/002840.html
My subjective summary: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-November/002975.html
I recall that thread, now that you mention it... I thought I sounded off during that discussion but it looks like I kept silent.
I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P
Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or update 'em.
Well, Thayer has recommended we remove it because the logo loses most of the effect in the craptacular colors provided by the initial VGA framebuffer.... me, I'm neutral. I don't reboot enough for that image to be relevant. I *do* think that we should remove the custom splash screens from apps, but I also believe the decision is up to the maintainers of the apps themselves.
Monday 14 January 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote: | > I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site | > now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel | > logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P | > | > Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or | > update 'em. | | Well, Thayer has recommended we remove it because the logo loses | most of the effect in the craptacular colors provided by the | initial VGA framebuffer.... me, I'm neutral. I don't reboot enough | for that image to be relevant. send me the SVG of the logo and i'll try to make a kernel logo that tries to resemble the 24bit one. i did so for the last. the VGA framebuffer has a limited ammoutn of colours, you have to dither them to make them look nice. arend we having also a black/white version that looks fine? and also a grey version? - D -- .·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´ ° ° ° ° ° ° ><((((º> ° ° ° ° ° <º)))>< <º)))><
On Jan 14, 2008 3:05 PM, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote:
Monday 14 January 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote: | > I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site | > now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel | > logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P | > | > Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or | > update 'em. | | Well, Thayer has recommended we remove it because the logo loses | most of the effect in the craptacular colors provided by the | initial VGA framebuffer.... me, I'm neutral. I don't reboot enough | for that image to be relevant.
send me the SVG of the logo and i'll try to make a kernel logo that tries to resemble the 24bit one. i did so for the last.
the VGA framebuffer has a limited ammoutn of colours, you have to dither them to make them look nice.
arend we having also a black/white version that looks fine? and also a grey version?
Does this help? http://www.cinderwick.ca/archer/ I didn't look too hard. There may be svg on there. If not I cc'd Thayer on here 8)
On Jan 14, 2008 2:48 PM PST, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 3:05 PM, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote:
Monday 14 January 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote: | > I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site | > now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel | > logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P | > | > Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or | > update 'em. | | Well, Thayer has recommended we remove it because the logo loses | most of the effect in the craptacular colors provided by the | initial VGA framebuffer.... me, I'm neutral. I don't reboot enough | for that image to be relevant.
send me the SVG of the logo and i'll try to make a kernel logo that tries to resemble the 24bit one. i did so for the last.
the VGA framebuffer has a limited ammoutn of colours, you have to dither them to make them look nice.
arend we having also a black/white version that looks fine? and also a grey version?
Does this help? http://www.cinderwick.ca/archer/ I didn't look too hard. There may be svg on there.
If not I cc'd Thayer on here 8)
If my opinion counts, and if a logo must be used (*grumble*) then I would definitely prefer it to be 100% white. Personally, I don't see a need for graphical icons in the framebuffer, but if they're going to be used, it should be as subtle as possible. All of the new logos are now available at http://www.archlinux.org/art/, including an all-white version.
On Jan 14, 2008 4:37 PM, Thayer Williams <thayerw@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 2:48 PM PST, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 3:05 PM, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote:
Monday 14 January 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote: | > I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site | > now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel | > logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P | > | > Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or | > update 'em. | | Well, Thayer has recommended we remove it because the logo loses | most of the effect in the craptacular colors provided by the | initial VGA framebuffer.... me, I'm neutral. I don't reboot enough | for that image to be relevant.
send me the SVG of the logo and i'll try to make a kernel logo that tries to resemble the 24bit one. i did so for the last.
the VGA framebuffer has a limited ammoutn of colours, you have to dither them to make them look nice.
arend we having also a black/white version that looks fine? and also a grey version?
Does this help? http://www.cinderwick.ca/archer/ I didn't look too hard. There may be svg on there.
If not I cc'd Thayer on here 8)
If my opinion counts, and if a logo must be used (*grumble*) then I would definitely prefer it to be 100% white. Personally, I don't see a need for graphical icons in the framebuffer, but if they're going to be used, it should be as subtle as possible.
All of the new logos are now available at http://www.archlinux.org/art/, including an all-white version.
http://www.archlinux.org/logos/archlinux-official-white.svg My eyes! The goggles do nothing! I can't see! :) -Dan
On 1/14/08, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 4:37 PM, Thayer Williams <thayerw@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 2:48 PM PST, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 14, 2008 3:05 PM, Damir Perisa <damir.perisa@solnet.ch> wrote:
Monday 14 January 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote: | > I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site | > now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel | > logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P | > | > Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or | > update 'em. | | Well, Thayer has recommended we remove it because the logo loses | most of the effect in the craptacular colors provided by the | initial VGA framebuffer.... me, I'm neutral. I don't reboot enough | for that image to be relevant.
send me the SVG of the logo and i'll try to make a kernel logo that tries to resemble the 24bit one. i did so for the last.
the VGA framebuffer has a limited ammoutn of colours, you have to dither them to make them look nice.
arend we having also a black/white version that looks fine? and also a grey version?
Does this help? http://www.cinderwick.ca/archer/ I didn't look too hard. There may be svg on there.
If not I cc'd Thayer on here 8)
If my opinion counts, and if a logo must be used (*grumble*) then I would definitely prefer it to be 100% white. Personally, I don't see a need for graphical icons in the framebuffer, but if they're going to be used, it should be as subtle as possible.
All of the new logos are now available at http://www.archlinux.org/art/, including an all-white version.
http://www.archlinux.org/logos/archlinux-official-white.svg
My eyes! The goggles do nothing! I can't see!
How do i shot goggles?
participants (7)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Damir Perisa
-
Dan McGee
-
eliott
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Thayer Williams
-
Travis Willard