Arch Linux logo concept

fwojciec · 2007-10-10 04:06:34

OK, I've "remixed" some more GDM themes so I thought I'd share. I've used thayer.w design from his GDM and Slim themes, but with Cilyan tango colored version of the alpha2, because I like tango icons

I'm not very good when it comes to deciding about colors, so I just went through my Xdefaults, and tried all colors I had defined there, and picked the ones I liked. Enjoy:

BTW, I didn't change anything in the licenses and such so if any of you guys (thayer.w and Cilyan) want me to make some changes just let me know.

Last edited by fwojciec (2007-10-12 15:04:51)

thayer · 2007-10-10 04:42:38

Nice! I don't use GDM but I'm sure someone will make use of 'em. My only concern about the licensing is that if the modifying author doesn't add their own contact info to appropriate section then I may end up fielding questions/support for somebody else's work. In this case though I don't see there being too many problems

mintcoffee · 2007-10-10 06:16:47

I like the current logo. I think the gradients could use some work, but overall, it's nice. It reminds me of the starfleet logo

thayer · 2007-10-10 08:15:07

Yes, it seems that everyone who likes the current logo does so because it reminds them of Star Trek (e.g. someone else's logo).

I like Star Trek too, but I think Arch's brand should be its own

zenlord · 2007-10-10 08:26:31

As I also mess around with logo's from time to time, I feel confident to post my few cents in this thread.

1. The current logo is IMHO not up to the quality that it should reflect. The concept maybe good, but the implementation is quite bad as the three objects in the logo clearly form no entity - they are just thrown together.

2. The concept posted by thayer.w is great, and covers all bases a logo should: it scales very well while remaining recognisible (sp?) and IMHO it doesn't trail that much from the original logo (I can still see some Star Trek in it ). The look as I see it is partly futuristic and partly dictatorial, but the latter is probably caused by the strong black and crisp corners.

3. The adaptation by fwojciec I like very much, because it takes the harshness out of the concept by thayer.w. The relation to the Tango-guidelines is not really clear to me, but as a whole, it just makes sense.

I would propose to use this new logo as follows:
- use the 2-color version by thayer.w where ever gradients are not done (small prints or multi-coloured environments etc.)
- use the gradient version in other occasions.

About the suggestion to round the corners of the ARCH in the new logo, I have to disagree. An arch in construction is supposed to keep the building from collapsing. As I see it, this firm arch stands tall to enable us (the arrow) to get out without being crushed by ... (the system, computers, whatnot?). This ARCH should remain tall and full of pride of what it has already accomplished, enabling people to take it even further than we are now.

Did I mention both new logo's look *much* more professional than the current one?

My 0.02 €. Please don't shoot me

Zl.

Last edited by zenlord (2007-10-10 08:28:51)

PJ · 2007-10-10 09:13:26

zenlord wrote:

1. The current logo is IMHO not up to the quality that it should reflect. The concept maybe good, but the implementation is quite bad as the three objects in the logo clearly form no entity - they are just thrown together.

I partly agree conserning the tango version of the logo, but I don't agree when it comes to the 2 colored version. There are some errors in the tango version of the logo and I have tried to fix one conserning the shadow below. It didn't find its way upstream so most people that use the current logo don't actually fix the shadow. Besides, the shadow is a bit of in both my fixed version and the current version considering the tango guide lines, it really should be more centered but I haven't find a better way to create the shadow. Another thing is that the second inner outline of the object should IMO be a bit more subtle.

I started to fix these things but haven't upload anything more than the shadow fix. This is mostly because I lost interest in fixing it.

Last edited by PJ (2007-10-10 09:19:51)

PJ · 2007-10-10 13:29:12

Remade the current logo. I know that the shadow is a bit wrong according to the tango guidelines, but I find it a bit more appealing.

svg

zenlord · 2007-10-10 17:01:38

PJ wrote:

Remade the current logo. I know that the shadow is a bit wrong according to the tango guidelines, but I find it a bit more appealing.
http://www.geocities.com/kinortkele/arc … _blue3.png
svg

It's better, but those shadows are from two differently positioned lights, no? If yes, it doesn't help to see those objects as 1 entity...

Zl.

burra · 2007-10-10 18:09:50

Hi,
tried to make a basic shape. All are free to use it and alter it how they want.

Burra

http://archbox.dyndns.org/pic/arch1.svg
http://archbox.dyndns.org/pic/arch2.svg

PJ · 2007-10-10 18:58:27

zenlord wrote:

PJ wrote:
Remade the current logo. I know that the shadow is a bit wrong according to the tango guidelines, but I find it a bit more appealing.
http://www.geocities.com/kinortkele/arc … _blue3.png
svg
It's better, but those shadows are from two differently positioned lights, no? If yes, it doesn't help to see those objects as 1 entity...
Zl.

Thanks for your feedback.

To be honest, I wasn't really happy with everything in it, especially the black part in it since I am sure that I didn't "get it right". The shadow was more or less a quick fix. I know that it isn't enterily correct as a shadow but IMO it's better than the current one.

Seems like I have some work to do.

zenlord · 2007-10-11 08:25:41

PJ wrote:

To be honest, I wasn't really happy with everything in it, especially the black part in it since I am sure that I didn't "get it right". The shadow was more or less a quick fix. I know that it isn't enterily correct as a shadow but IMO it's better than the current one.

It is indeed better than the current one.

I think the current logo tries two symbolize two arches: the blue one vertical and the black one horizontal, no? In that case this could be made more obvious by positioning the black arch in front of the blue one. I think the black arch should curl around the right leg of the blue arch in a horizontal, but slightly ascending way. I hope my description is clear - english isn't my mother tongue...

As it is now, the gradients insinuate a 3D-object, but the shadow makes it very clear that it isn't. And if it were, the shadow of the black arch should stretch more 'to the back', and that could break the balance of the objects.

Maybe the best way to get the 3D-positioning right is to render it - but then again, I assume this is alot of work (I have no experience at all in that area).

THX for your efforts!

Zl.

PJ · 2007-10-11 09:34:25

zenlord wrote:

I think the current logo tries two symbolize two arches: the blue one vertical and the black one horizontal, no? In that case this could be made more obvious by positioning the black arch in front of the blue one. I think the black arch should curl around the right leg of the blue arch in a horizontal, but slightly ascending way. I hope my description is clear - english isn't my mother tongue...

I think it might look better in 3D if the black arch is put in front of the blue, but my impression of it so far has been that it is supposed to be some kind of optical illusion. Maybe it wasn't supposed to be an optical illusion but the fact is that it really becomes an optical illusion when the logo goes 3D.

I could try to make one where the black arch is in front of the blue.

zenlord wrote:

As it is now, the gradients insinuate a 3D-object, but the shadow makes it very clear that it isn't. And if it were, the shadow of the black arch should stretch more 'to the back', and that could break the balance of the objects.

Sounds reasonable. I know why it looks a bit flat and it is because I only made a copy of the arches and basically just shrink the height of it, faded the color and finally blured it. I really didn't figure out how the shadow might appear of the horizontal arch and that could be a bit tricky without a 3D-rendering program.

zenlord wrote:

Maybe the best way to get the 3D-positioning right is to render it - but then again, I assume this is alot of work (I have no experience at all in that area).

Neither do I have and for the moment I am not sure that I want to put that much effort, just to update this logo.

iphitus · 2007-10-11 10:04:56

PJ wrote:

Remade the current logo. I know that the shadow is a bit wrong according to the tango guidelines, but I find it a bit more appealing.
http://www.geocities.com/kinortkele/arc … _blue3.png
svg

That looks awesome.

Yes, it seems that everyone who likes the current logo does so because it reminds them of Star Trek (e.g. someone else's logo).
I like Star Trek too, but I think Arch's brand should be its own

Hey, not everyone likes it because of that. I think it's a good logo, but PJ's tidying of it is probably the best i've seen in this thread.

James

thayer · 2007-10-11 14:43:57

iphitus wrote:

I like Star Trek too, but I think Arch's brand should be its own
Hey, not everyone likes it because of that. I think it's a good logo, but PJ's tidying of it is probably the best i've seen in this thread.
James

I agree that PJ's tweaks has made it look better... but it still looks like Star Trek, and no amount of recolouring or shadow perspectives will fix that. Do you think there are many people who like the logo, but have never associated it with Star Trek? I don't, because Start Trek (classic or new) is about as internationally recognized as David Hasselhoff and The Simpsons.

Don't get me wrong, I *like* Star Trek! I also know that the simplicity of logos means that there is bound to be repetition. If the current Arch logo looked similar to say... a sewing machine manufacturers logo, I don't think anyone would be making comments about the similarities. But the fact is the current logo looks very much like a preexisting cultural icon that is deeply embedded in the minds of most and definitely associated with Computer Science subculture. For people that like Star Trek, they say "I love it, your logo looks like Starfleet". For people that don't like Star Trek and all that the trekkies culture represents, they say the logo needs to go, that it's a clear association with something bad/cheesy/dated/fanatical-nerdism/insert-your-own-feelings-here.

I simply think the logo should stand on its own... without being associated with such a preexisting icon in our subculture.

jellywerker · 2007-10-11 17:21:54

Since everyone else is adding their own logo's to thayer's thread, I thought I'd post this. We could just swap "Starfleet" with "Archlinux" and "Planets" with "Archers." It would be great, nothing like lookalike logo's in my book. Pfft, originality, who needs it?

*thumbsup* to thayers logos, her ideas are awesome.

Cerebral · 2007-10-11 17:49:27

Personally, I like the idea of a 'fresh' logo, but I wonder how important the recognizability of our current logo is. Of all the logos in the thread, I prefer Thayer's design with the 'booted' right foot, so to speak, best, although I agree with Iph that the cleaned-up current logo by PJ looks slick.

shining · 2007-10-11 18:05:00

thayer.w wrote:

Yes, it seems that everyone who likes the current logo does so because it reminds them of Star Trek (e.g. someone else's logo).

I guess I am the exception that confirms the rule then?

gummibaerchen · 2007-10-11 18:16:25

Yeah, PJs looks much better than the actual one

Only the shadow is a little bit confusing/strange, but I could not describe how to actually make it better.

I think their are many pros and cons for either sticking to the old logo (maybe the "newer version" of it) or choosing and all new logo.

thayer · 2007-10-11 20:24:13

jellywerker wrote:

*thumbsup* to thayers logos, her ideas are awesome.

HIS ideas... HIS!! LOL Seriously though, thanks..

shining: Are you saying that you don't think the current logo bears a striking resemblance to the Star Trek logo? Or are you saying that you like the logo regardless that it reminds you of Star Trek?

MoxJet · 2007-10-11 20:36:31

Whoa! Your new logo really looks great! It is an improvement to the current logo, even though I consider that one very Arch Linux. This one is even more!

Anyone up for making a tshirt with this logo?

thayer · 2007-10-11 20:59:51

Cheers!

gummibaerchen · 2007-10-11 21:29:53

thayer.w wrote:

Cheers!
...

Wow, they look really cool

(BTW the "A" reminds the of A1, an Austrian phone company http://www.a1.net/)

jellywerker · 2007-10-12 01:42:49

His? He? Huh?

Since I've been a girl gamer for a long time

I saw that on your blog and was confused, sorry =P Was the article from someone else or do multiple people post to your blog or what?

Cerebral · 2007-10-12 01:45:15

jellywerker wrote:

His? He? Huh?
Since I've been a girl gamer for a long time
I saw that on your blog and was confused, sorry =P Was the article from someone else or do multiple people post to your blog or what?

At the bottom of each post, it says who posted it. Your quote was from a post by "Libby", not by "Thayer"

peets · 2007-10-12 03:44:48

What I like about the current logo is that it feels comfortable. Many distro-hoppers find a home in Arch, and the current logo makes me feel comfy. Maybe it's the roundness of the arch, its stoutness, the softness of its shape or the softness of the colours, I'm not sure. The new Alpha logo looks much more harsh-agressive-violent.

What I like about thayer's logo is the simplicity in the shape and the colours. Like you said, logos should be easily recognisable at any scale, on any medium, in any colour.

What I like most about either logos is the text: archlinux. It's a pretty font, and it's explicit. Thayer's logo is smart because it reserves space for this string. But I think the A (or /\) is too tall, making the "archlinux" string look squeezed in at the bottom.

Good work thayer, and a very good initiative. I think I will use your svg files to make some edits of my own.

-ppp-

Arch Linux

#101 2007-10-10 04:06:34

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#102 2007-10-10 04:42:38

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#103 2007-10-10 06:16:47

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#104 2007-10-10 08:15:07

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#105 2007-10-10 08:26:31

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#106 2007-10-10 09:13:26

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#107 2007-10-10 13:29:12

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#108 2007-10-10 17:01:38

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#109 2007-10-10 18:09:50

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#110 2007-10-10 18:58:27

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#111 2007-10-11 08:25:41

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#112 2007-10-11 09:34:25

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#113 2007-10-11 10:04:56

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#114 2007-10-11 14:43:57

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#115 2007-10-11 17:21:54

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#116 2007-10-11 17:49:27

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#117 2007-10-11 18:05:00

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#118 2007-10-11 18:16:25

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#119 2007-10-11 20:24:13

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#120 2007-10-11 20:36:31

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#121 2007-10-11 20:59:51

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#122 2007-10-11 21:29:53

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#123 2007-10-12 01:42:49

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#124 2007-10-12 01:45:15

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#125 2007-10-12 03:44:48

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

Board footer