Arch Linux logo concept

alexmatos · 2007-10-30 12:00:45

iphitus wrote:

Colour changing is fun. Added a bit more individualism to it too. I hear what you say above about the grey foxbunny, but it goes great with these blues.
http://src.iphitus.org/arch-logo/conceptD.png
http://src.iphitus.org/arch-logo/conceptD.svg

Man, I REALLY love it! The best so far IMHO!

Sigi · 2007-10-30 12:01:44

iphitus wrote:

PDExperiment626 wrote:
Finally, I have a more logistical concern about your potential submission. Rules have been laid out that devs will be the ones doing the initial vote on the logo, and the community only votes in the case of a tie. You submitting as a developer flags as an overt conflict of interest. Regardless of whether you vote or not on your design, you have no way to assure the community that nepotism won't come into play in the logo decision, if you submit. This will discourage others from submitting as they will all be starting at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage as a decision maker will be creating a design of their own. If the developers wanted to create their own logo, they should not have ordained a community contest to have a logo created. I'm hoping all developers can appreciate this point of view.
Hadn't thought of that. Insert <expletive />. That ruins the fun. I'll post this on the list and see what others say. IMHO they're a professional bunch -- I don't think nepotism would come in at all... but I guess the point should be raised.

IMO this is something that should be discussed under those who have submitted a design. I absolutely don't have anything about iphitus submitting a logo.

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 12:05:26

Here is something for artists who are still working:

http://sucs.org/~sits/logo/brieflogoguide.svg

Nothing too indepth, but it covers most scenarios.

iphitus · 2007-10-30 12:05:49

Sigi wrote:

iphitus wrote:
PDExperiment626 wrote:
Finally, I have a more logistical concern about your potential submission. Rules have been laid out that devs will be the ones doing the initial vote on the logo, and the community only votes in the case of a tie. You submitting as a developer flags as an overt conflict of interest. Regardless of whether you vote or not on your design, you have no way to assure the community that nepotism won't come into play in the logo decision, if you submit. This will discourage others from submitting as they will all be starting at a SIGNIFICANT disadvantage as a decision maker will be creating a design of their own. If the developers wanted to create their own logo, they should not have ordained a community contest to have a logo created. I'm hoping all developers can appreciate this point of view.
Hadn't thought of that. Insert <expletive />. That ruins the fun. I'll post this on the list and see what others say. IMHO they're a professional bunch -- I don't think nepotism would come in at all... but I guess the point should be raised.
IMO this is something that should be discussed under those who have submitted a design. I absolutely don't have anything about iphitus submitting a logo.

Good point. Feel free to start a new thread and discuss it then, this one should be left to discussions of individual concepts.

Last edited by iphitus (2007-10-30 12:07:15)

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 12:24:54

Here it is: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 66#p294366

thayer · 2007-10-30 14:38:13

iphitus wrote:

thayerw: Could you do a version of yours using a more free font, maybe London Between which foxbunny has used. You've used Karat, which we established, that we can't! This kinda goes to everyone, make sure the font is free for commercial use and redistribution. If it's modifiable -- bonus.
James

Was it established that Karat can no longer be used? If so then I am sorry to hear that and I think it's a mistake.

There is virtually no reason for the core logotype to be made from an open source font, so long as the logotype is available as a vector image. It's a brand name, so Arch Linux should be spelled "Arch Linux" verbatim, regardless of regional languages. The sub-text or slogan typeface however, can and should be an open-licensed font.

I took the idea one step further with the Karat typeface, modifying the letters by hand to make it even more unique to Arch. I chose Liberation Sans (open licensed) for the slogan typeface to make modifications easier for the community. DejaVu Sans is an alternative type which has some of the best internationalization support among free fonts.

Personally, I've never liked London Between. To me, it seems far too cartoon'ish, with garish serifs and poor kerning.

Last edited by thayer.w (2007-10-30 14:38:45)

thayer · 2007-10-30 14:44:52

@Cerebral:

I'm guessing my latest submission (sent Sunday) didn't make it through the spam filters... which is fine because I've changed it yet again! LOL

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 14:45:10

Imho, it is a huge advantage if we can freely use the font (not just for personal use), because:

1. we do sell products on CafePress
2. we do sell CD on-line
3. it would allow us to brand the websites: say like "Arch Forums" instead of "Arch Linux", and maintain recognizability
4. community members could create their artwork with different texts

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-30 14:45:42)

Cerebral · 2007-10-30 14:56:11

thayer.w wrote:

@Cerebral:
I'm guessing my latest submission (sent Sunday) didn't make it through the spam filters... which is fine because I've changed it yet again! LOL

Hm, I guess not. After you retracted the first submission of the minimalist, I haven't seen another one from you. I'll check my spam folders when I get home

thayer · 2007-10-30 15:13:15

foxbunny wrote:

Imho, it is a huge advantage if we can freely use the font (not just for personal use), because:
1. we do sell products on CafePress
2. we do sell CD on-line
3. it would allow us to brand the websites: say like "Arch Forums" instead of "Arch Linux", and maintain recognizability
4. community members could create their artwork with different texts

1 and 2: can both be done easily and legally without any need of the actual font file
3: this can easily be done with the freely available version of Karat
4: again, this is what secondary typefaces are for...

@Cerebral: No worries, I'll send the revised revised copy in a bit

Last edited by thayer.w (2007-10-30 15:13:52)

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 15:25:57

thayer.w wrote:

1 and 2: can both be done easily and legally without any need of the actual font file

Yes, as long as the original author had the license... But still, only in unmodified form.

thayer.w wrote:

3: this can easily be done with the freely available version of Karat

The 'freely' available version is for personal use only.

thayer.w wrote:

4: again, this is what secondary typefaces are for...

Thayer, even Ubuntu allows its users to both get and use the ubuntu font... so I think a free font qualifies as an advantage.

I'm not saying the old logotype must not be used. I'm just pointing out the advantages of a free (freeware, or, even better, an open) font.

thayer · 2007-10-30 16:04:28

@ foxbunny & iphitus: In my opinion, the advantage of a free font is so small that it should not be considered a deal breaker.

@ Cerebral: just confirming that I sent you an email with two submissions about 10 minutes ago.

Last edited by thayer.w (2007-10-30 16:05:43)

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 16:34:13

Okay, Thayer, if you say so.

I'd still keep an eye out for those good looking free fonts (although, admittedly, there aren't too many of them around).

Here are some nice resources for those looking for fonts:

http://www.smeltery.net/ (freeware, no-mod)
http://www.josbuivenga.demon.nl/index.html (freeware, no-mod)
http://www.alvit.de/blog/article/20-bes … cial-fonts (some freeware, some open, some dead links)
http://techmagazine.ws/most-popular-free-quality-fonts/ (some freeware, some open)
http://www.dafont.com/ (mostly freeware, but many for personal use only, also some fonts with 'dead' licenses)

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-30 17:08:41)

dhave · 2007-10-30 18:40:28

I like Michael's submission #3 and would like to know if he has a 1600x1050 wallpaper that uses his logo.

I'm talking about the logo here: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 81#p293881

Thanks.

freigeist · 2007-10-30 19:36:02

I feel like I have to add some more suggestions to the new logo. First let me introduce myself a little bit, I'm 31 years old and proud father of two sons. I use linux since the early 90's. I studied computer science and work at the "corporate computer science" of a german bank. I was always interested in graphic design (digital but also painting with oil or pencil) and during my studies I worked a bit as a freelancer designing websites and flash-content (nothing I would call "professional"). I've seen trends come and go, neon colors, 3d stuff with glowing and shadows, the technical era, where everything was made of fractals, robots and atoms, comic style, lately vector graphics and amorphous, sprawling, vegetable like design with pale colors. While all of these graphic concepts looked great when they arised they all got boring a short time later and they quickly looked outdated. But there are things that always work, because there is a inherent understanding of working graphic concepts. Look at famous fonts for example, something like officina or frutiger (made 1975, one year before I was even born!) won't get old. Good design principles just work and one of them is simplicity.

When I look at all the proposed logos, I see well made ones but nothing really works in my eyes. The thing is, that we all have different suggestions to what Arch Linux means and stands for. Because I am one of the older here, I always have more than just the screen-ready logo in mind, I think about the logo at the header of a written letter or printed on a business card. I think about how it would look if it would be beveled (is this the right word when I am talking about something that has been pressed into paper for example and I see the heights and downs of it?). And most of the proposed logos just don't work for this.

If I look at the logos of current linux distributions, most of them say nothing to me. Sure, I know some of the logos, but do I know them because they are great and unique or just because there has been a lot of PR for them? If I look back and remember how my desktop looked and what kind of designs I liked, I must ascertain that I was very unstable and often just followed the trend.

If I think about what Arch Linux means to me, I always have these things in mind:
- Simple
- Just works
- not bigheaded
- no blase attitude
- understatement
- advanced
- evolved
- architecture...a structured, technical oriented discipline to build highly complex systems or buildings...I think about blueprints and precise stencil paintings

This leads to a simple logo with few, pale colors. That was what I had in mind when I created my logo. I like the idea to choose ONE unique color to represent an identity, therefore I have chosen that turquoise.

Gentoo for example gives me this associations:

- choices
- geek attitude
- advanced
- complex
- *bleeding* edge

And I think the gentoo logo matches this attitude, looking modern, technical and a bit geek-style.

This all leads to one question: Do we really need a logo at all? When we talk about simplicity is the name Arch Linux with a elegant, yet simple font not enough? Maybe two colors and a good font are more unique than all the logos we have submitted...what do you think?

(Sometimes I really hate that I am no native speaker...It's really hard to express what you think in a foreign language, I hope you get the idea of what I am talking about anyways)

Last edited by freigeist (2007-10-30 19:56:17)

thayer · 2007-10-30 20:00:46

freigeist wrote:

Do we really need a logo at all? When we talk about simplicity is the name Arch Linux with a elegant, yet simple font not enough? Maybe two colors and a good font are more unique than all the logos we have submitted...what do you think?

To be honest, 3 weeks ago I would've said yes, we definitely need a logo. Now, I am more inclined to think that no, we don't need a logo. I think it would make a clear statement that we are not your average distro, we are not for newbs, and we are not for everyone; we are unique. It also leaves artwork open to all interpretation. The community could pick and choose whatever artwork they like the best.

From a branding perspective, this is a bad idea. It produces a chaotic environment in which brand recognition will suffer greatly. Is that what we want? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

freigeist · 2007-10-30 20:06:45

thayer.w wrote:

To be honest, 3 weeks ago I would've said yes, we definitely need a logo. Now, I am more inclined to think that no, we don't need a logo. I think it would make a clear statement that we are not your average distro, we are not for newbs, and we are not for everyone; we are unique. It also leaves artwork open to all interpretation. The community could pick and choose whatever artwork they like the best.
From a branding perspective, this is a bad idea. It produces a chaotic environment in which brand recognition will suffer greatly. Is that what we want? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

We don't care too much about looking good but more about the intrinsic values (just works!) and we deliberately leave place for creativity and choices. I think this a great statement...

foxbunny · 2007-10-30 20:36:27

Interesting point. Well, some of us here work with marketing people a lot, which naturally leads us to at least take a brief look at the market and try to capture the overall state of 'The Linux logo' today. However, I do understand what you mean. A logotype only approach, which I call logoless. Since I come from a book designer background, I find it more elegant and simple. However, if you opt for that, imho, it is IMPERATIVE that you use the full name of the distro.

Correctly spelled: Arch Linux
variants like 'archlinux' are possible if you make a clean separation of the two words.

I've seen a couple of logoless designs on the Linux market, and they don't look particularly attractive, and, yeah, it is more difficult generally. But if you think you can pull it off, it could actually be refreshingly nice. I will also attempt something like that.

Keep in mind the following, though. It has to be used as an avatar, so it has to be pretty unique. Like the Novel logo. The N is used as a logo in their artwork, and it IS quite recognizable.

http://www.novell.com/company/logo/

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-30 20:37:34)

PDExperiment626 · 2007-10-30 23:38:22

Freigeist brings up an interesting point about going logoless. The problem I have with this approach is

1. No logo does not indicate simplicity or elegance in this market. It indicates that your distro isn't organized or united enough to have one logo. The reality is that all other (large) distros have a logo; and Arch not having one will be viewed as a weakness, not a strength because of its size.

2. Doing what foxbunny suggests of using letter(s) as a logo is not a safe idea. You can't trademark letters, the only way to really do this type of thing is to (essentially) gain exclusive rights to your own font. This is honestly beyond us as a distro to do (you need a professional font house to do it, so you are assured of non-infringement on another font). If you do not use an exclusive font, then someone could come along and rip off your entire design without fear of repercussion; and this WOULD happen if arch were to get more popular (it's free PR for a parasitic distro then). Brand hijacking I think is something we'd like to avoid. Indeed, this is what the devs have indicated by holding a contest to get a logo that will be officially registered.

3. I fear that arch is getting big enough that if it doesn't get a unified logo and design, one of its forks will. The pacman package manager is awesome and is tempting for a potentially parasitic fork. Think of Ubuntu and Debian. There is a lot of bad blood between those two distros as Ubuntu basically leeches off of Debian while influencing the Debian distro itself (buying devs, etc.). This situation came about because Ubuntu acknowledged the necessity of good marketing in the linux distro market and debian did not.

All it would take is someone taking their fork of arch to a venture capitalist, where they could get a PR budget and dev salaries and Arch would be pretty much finished. In that situation the fork would be the same distro as Arch is now, but the head of the fork would essentially rebrand the OS under a unified scheme. So, we can help the devs get a good logo and design, or we could leave Arch vulnerable to having someone do it for us.

Last edited by PDExperiment626 (2007-10-31 00:13:07)

foxbunny · 2007-10-31 00:28:11

PDExperiment626, some of your points are all valid. But I don't think that a little experimentation will hurt anyone. Besides, having a logo doesn't guarantee that someone will not fork Arch and make profit off it. And I doubt it will be the end of Arch, anyway.

On a more personal note, I can't help but feel that you are overcriticizing, even merely for the sake of it, and, as a result, spreading too much negative energy. If you give your rational side too much space, the intuition will fail. There needs to be some balance. Many a time sucess is not only the result of careful planning and thinking, but also the result of someone's whim, or gut feeling. Just as you balance your maths with mythology and fiction, so must the creation of brand identity balance research with creativity and intuition.

cactus · 2007-10-31 08:00:04

PDExperiment626 wrote:

All it would take is someone taking their fork of arch to a venture capitalist, where they could get a PR budget and dev salaries and Arch would be pretty much finished. In that situation the fork would be the same distro as Arch is now, but the head of the fork would essentially rebrand the OS under a unified scheme. So, we can help the devs get a good logo and design, or we could leave Arch vulnerable to having someone do it for us.

http://www.lolwut.com/

foxbunny · 2007-10-31 09:13:21

lmao

iphitus · 2007-10-31 09:40:59

PDExperiment626: Seeing as you know Arch so well, so much about design and how the world works -- how about you post a design?

Lets get back to discussing the artwork. Start a NEW thread if you wish to discuss something else.

So, anyone else care to comment on my updated design?
http://src.iphitus.org/arch-logo/conceptD.png

James

Last edited by iphitus (2007-10-31 09:56:12)

ekerazha · 2007-10-31 11:04:48

Actually, "imho", this is by far the best http://www.archlinux.org/~travis/logo-c … rchway.png

It is original, simple but not simplicistic and it looks great. Well... maybe it isn't the best at "16x16", but it's still good.

PJ · 2007-10-31 11:04:57

iphitus wrote:

So, anyone else care to comment on my updated design?
http://src.iphitus.org/arch-logo/conceptD.png

The current use of color on the blue arc makes it feel like it should go behind the right side of the white/black arc. IMO it looks like the blue arc goes into the image when it earlier look like it come out from the image. This is a similar problem as the current arch logo has when it comes to create a 3d object of the logo. I am not saying that it should be possible to render it in 3d but it really helps if the artist did think of this from the beginning.

It is something that I don't like with the overall design but I can't figure out what it is, I am guessing that it is the shape of the blue arc. Anyway, I think the black/white arc has an interesting shape.

I don't know if it answered your question regarding inkscape or if you missed my answer due to the discussion that followed if developers could contribute to the contest. It might be that I didn't understand the question but if that's the issue then I might as well do another attempt to answer your question. Anyway, here is the short guide I submitted earlier:
www.geocities.com/kinortkele/howto.svg

Last edited by PJ (2007-10-31 11:06:06)

Arch Linux

#601 2007-10-30 12:00:45

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#602 2007-10-30 12:01:44

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#603 2007-10-30 12:05:26

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#604 2007-10-30 12:05:49

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#605 2007-10-30 12:24:54

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#606 2007-10-30 14:38:13

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#607 2007-10-30 14:44:52

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#608 2007-10-30 14:45:10

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#609 2007-10-30 14:56:11

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#610 2007-10-30 15:13:15

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#611 2007-10-30 15:25:57

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#612 2007-10-30 16:04:28

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#613 2007-10-30 16:34:13

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#614 2007-10-30 18:40:28

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#615 2007-10-30 19:36:02

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#616 2007-10-30 20:00:46

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#617 2007-10-30 20:06:45

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#618 2007-10-30 20:36:27

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#619 2007-10-30 23:38:22

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#620 2007-10-31 00:28:11

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#621 2007-10-31 08:00:04

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#622 2007-10-31 09:13:21

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#623 2007-10-31 09:40:59

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#624 2007-10-31 11:04:48

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#625 2007-10-31 11:04:57

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

Board footer