Arch Linux logo concept

peart · 2007-10-14 21:57:10

foxbunny wrote:

I think it's called the Universal Man, or something like that.

Vitruvian man

PJ · 2007-10-14 22:18:04

By the way, I tried to put the black arch in front of the blue but IMO it didn't look that great. it might be that I am too used to the current version.

foxbunny · 2007-10-14 23:03:33

I think this is about 95% Tango:

Just for the record, I the proper 100% Tango would make this logo frontal, which would look kinda like the current logo. Since we already have that logo, I didn't want to bother reinventing the wheel.

PJ, number 1 is nice.

EDIT: Just noticed it. Number 1 does break the Tango specs, I think.

Number 2... Hm... I don't like the color, I guess.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-14 23:15:51)

foxbunny · 2007-10-14 23:12:26

ProzacR wrote:

Ahh sexy signature bar.
There is users of it already:
http://www.diskusijos.lt/viewtopic.php?t=27343&start=15

Woot!

Sigi · 2007-10-14 23:36:30

I'm sorry foxbunny, but I don't like the shape of the arch in your proposed logos. I don't know how to describe my feelings more accurate

Although I didn't receive too much feedback on my previously posted logos I keep playing around with inkscape:
[svg7]

[svg8]

Short guidelines for a possible interpretation:
The logo shows the infinity symbol, composed by an alpha (-> beginning) and an arch.

Feedback welcome! Cheers Sigi

edit: changed link to png instead of svg.
The borders of the archlinux-text are a little bit fat, please ignore this for now.

Last edited by Sigi (2007-10-14 23:39:42)

xaw · 2007-10-14 23:51:36

@Sigi: I actually really like the infinity concept! Nice work there!

foxbunny · 2007-10-15 00:33:43

Sigi wrote:

I'm sorry foxbunny, but I don't like the shape of the arch in your proposed logos. I don't know how to describe my feelings more accurate

Ah well, can't please 'em all.

BTW, nice concept... however, I'd advise against using fonts for that. Try to draw your own shapes. They usually look better.

peets · 2007-10-15 00:50:18

Yeah, uh... the current logo is nice after all. I really like PJ's rendition.

foxbunny · 2007-10-15 01:22:47

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-15 01:26:27)

foxbunny · 2007-10-15 01:32:50

I don't know how many ppl will agree with me on this, but the MAIN problem with the current logo is the Tango theme. Tango is meant to be (and was introduced as) an icon theme. As such, people react to Tango themed things as they would to an icon (or an oversized icon in the case of our current logo). Same goes for the PJ's rendition, which is okay as a tango themed icon, but IMHO, not okay as a logo for the same reason.

Take a look at this:

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=arch

This is not the first time the flat one was used as the default logo. Same with the Serbian LUG's torrent tracker, where Arch's logo is the same one as on Distrowatch.

Anyway, the flat one is rightfully chosen as the logo, because people are used to flat looking logos, and not the Tango looking ones.

Therefore, Tango should be an optional variant of the main logo. I'd like to call upon people who agree with me to leave Tango alone. For now...

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-15 02:09:44)

F · 2007-10-15 02:40:44

foxbunny wrote:

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3794 … qu2.th.jpg

The top two logos are made of serious win.

Jessehk · 2007-10-15 02:51:08

F wrote:

foxbunny wrote:
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3794 … qu2.th.jpg
The top two logos are made of serious win.

To be honest, I don't like that design. In my opinion, it doesn't have the same professional feel as thayer.w's design.

PJ · 2007-10-15 06:14:47

foxbunny wrote:

PJ, number 1 is nice.
EDIT: Just noticed it. Number 1 does break the Tango specs, I think.

Thanks!

Yes, it breaks it since it is to shiny, but I was aiming for a glass like surface, which means it's a bit hard to create with the tango guidelines.

foxbunny wrote:

Number 2... Hm... I don't like the color, I guess.

I could change the color if that's the only problem with it.

PJ · 2007-10-15 06:52:57

foxbunny wrote:

Anyway, the flat one is rightfully chosen as the logo, because people are used to flat looking logos, and not the Tango looking ones.
Therefore, Tango should be an optional variant of the main logo. I'd like to call upon people who agree with me to leave Tango alone. For now...

So true and I totally agree.

foxbunny · 2007-10-15 07:52:19

Jessehk wrote:

F wrote:
foxbunny wrote:
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3794 … qu2.th.jpg
The top two logos are made of serious win.
To be honest, I don't like that design. In my opinion, it doesn't have the same professional feel as thayer.w's design.

Hm. You mean it doesn't feel as serious, or you mean it is not executed with the same kind of profesionalism?

zenlord · 2007-10-15 08:21:05

F wrote:

foxbunny wrote:
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/3794 … qu2.th.jpg
The top two logos are made of serious win.

I agree. I like the new logo's by foxbunny less - Is it really all downhill from (t)here?

Zl.

mrjwalsh · 2007-10-15 08:24:28

inserts 2cents into the vending machine...

+1 to louipc's version of thayer.w's logo, the top is alot nicer and keeping the whole A simple without that lump foot bit at the bottom I think makes it look sleeker.

Good work with that logo thayer, it seems that you have put alot of work in it with the different colour schemes etc and it looks really nice and professional but I think that foot bit is very distracting.

foxbunny · 2007-10-15 09:47:13

Okay, I think I'm beginning to see a pattern here. So, the longer people have been using Arch, the more they like the *original* logo. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here because I'm basing this claim on forum registration dates. But it seems that the long-time users prefer the current logo with maybe a minor adjustment here and there, whereas the new users tend to like entirely different concepts.

Going from long-term to short-term experience with Arch Linux, people go from very conservative, to quite different and new.

Now I'm not saying that the current logo is perfect, but give it a couple of months to a year, and you'll find that it really is Arch. At least that's my experience, and I feel that many experienced users will agree. Familiarity makes the heart grow fonder – an old rule in marketing.

What we should be doing is ballancing those two trends instead of trying to either completely preserve, or completely reject the current concept. At least that's what I've been trying. Make it more contemporary, but still keep the good ol' Arch look:

* the blue (darker shades, not light like my first concept)
* the double arch shape
* the arch linux typography, which is IMNSHO timeless piece of work

Also, keep in mind that it's ARCH, not ARC. Like here:

Yup, that's an arch right there. St Louis Arch, if I'm not misinformed. Subtle but, IMHO, important difference.

Simple shape? Yes. Sability? Pretty much. Lightweight? Absolutely. That's Arch.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-15 09:56:56)

foxbunny · 2007-10-15 10:03:03

I've opened a thread here:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=38550

This will be used for collecting your concepts, because it is a bit tedious going from page to page looking for that logo you wanted to review again. BUT comment here in this thread, and leave the other thread for images only.

Refer to logos on the logo collector thread by their reply number (upper right corner of the post).

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-15 10:07:24)

iphitus · 2007-10-15 10:57:36

thayer.w wrote:

iphitus, I appreciate both your remarks and your honesty. May I ask whether you like the fact that the existing logo bears such resemblance to Star Trek? Because to me and many others, that's about the only recognisability that Arch has right now... Star Trek.

It's quite different, the only visual similarity is an arch of some sort, but even that is quite different, the star trek one is symmetrical, the Arch one is more styled. The horizontal arch on our logo is not even remotely like the crossbar on the Star Trek logo.

Globally, most people would fail to recognise the star trek logo. It's not a global as you might think. Even fewer would make a tenuous link between our logo and theirs.

Seeing that you are both a dev and a long-time archer, perhaps you can point me to a thread or link that explains the origin of the "Arch Linux" name and its meaning. I've been looking all over for some sort of explanation.

The name, and original logo, can be attributed to Judd. Given that Arch is pronounced as "arch", and the original logo portrays an arch, I think that's what was in mind when the distro was named. Why? who knows. I suppose you could try and draw links between an "arch" and our distro, but they're odd at best.

Regardless, I think we should respect that visual identity. The logo matches our name, and is a logo that's familiar among linux users. And it's not a half bad one too!

As for the font, I know i've searched for it before. I'm fairly certain it's Karat, or something that's awfully similar to Karat, not kabel though. The 'arch' uses a heavy/bold form, and the 'linux' the normal form.

Karat Normal: http://www.rubicon.ca/samp_pg3.htm
Karat Medium: http://www.urbanfonts.com/fonts/Karat.htm
Karat Demibold/Bold is unavailable for free.

James

Pierre · 2007-10-15 11:17:16

PJ wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/kinortkele/arc … -logo1.png
svg

I like this one. :-)

foxbunny · 2007-10-15 11:21:32

James, thanks for the fonts. However, isn't it a bit awkward that we are using a non-free font? I mean, if we wanted to write anything other than archlinux, we'd need the font... The homepage of one of the sites you posted (the first one) says those are only trial versions, which would mean legal trouble if used without proper licence.

I've stumbled upon an interview with Judd Vinet:

http://www.ossblog.it/post/1728/intervi … -archlinux

I think that, for us designers, it could be useful if devs would give us a short overview of current design goals of Arch Linux. Please.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-15 11:31:18)

iphitus · 2007-10-15 11:30:16

foxbunny wrote:

James, thanks for the fonts. However, isn't it a bit awkward that we are using a non-free font? I mean, if we wanted to write anything other than archlinux, we'd need the font... The homepage of one of the sites you posted (the first one) says those are only trial versions, which would mean legal trouble if used without proper licence.

Awkward, yes. Legal trouble, no. Assuming I got the font correct, then our current logo would have been made with a legitimate copy of the fonts as it uses the bold typeface which you must pay to receive. So our current logo is OK.

For the logo at least, it doesn't matter so much, i doubt we'd want any text other than 'archlinux' in it.

Here's the thread where we worked it out:
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=13203

KDE uses Kabel Book heavily and distributes it freely. It's similar, so you could use that.
http://www.kde.org/stuff/clipart.php

And it's still possible i got the font itself wrong... it's not exactly easy to pin down a font from a short set of characters.

James

Last edited by iphitus (2007-10-15 11:31:41)

foxbunny · 2007-10-15 11:33:25

I know that. Logo is fine. I meant if we were to use it in other artwork... There were times when I really thought something would be nicely set in Arch Linux type (something Arch-related, like the CD design) but couldn't use it. A shame, though, because the font looks so damn good.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-15 11:34:15)

gummibaerchen · 2007-10-15 14:19:17

foxbunny wrote:

1. full detailed version (made to be in accord with the KDE 4 Crystal theme as much as I felt inspired)
[...]
Also, the Tango'd version is merely a port, and not a logo in itself. It is meant to be used only in Tango'd environment.

Ahh, I see, so you are a KDE-guy

Hmm, I think that your version might now match closely to the Tango guideliens but doesn't make me feel tango-like (can't describe).

Most Tango Icons look soft an so, but yours is very rough (imho). I think the "light blue inline shadow" (I hope you get what I mean) is not supposed to be in the same colour all the time (so maybe is should be a little big lighter at some point, as done in the black arch).

Also isn't it allowed to stretch those inline shadows deeper into the coners?

But, despite how Tango the Tango version is (I am not an expert on that topic, just a GNOME user), I like the new logo and it looks good, even in the simple 1 colour style.

@PJ: That new version of the current logo also looks very good

Arch Linux

#201 2007-10-14 21:57:10

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#202 2007-10-14 22:18:04

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#203 2007-10-14 23:03:33

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#204 2007-10-14 23:12:26

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#205 2007-10-14 23:36:30

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#206 2007-10-14 23:51:36

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#207 2007-10-15 00:33:43

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#208 2007-10-15 00:50:18

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#209 2007-10-15 01:22:47

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#210 2007-10-15 01:32:50

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#211 2007-10-15 02:40:44

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#212 2007-10-15 02:51:08

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#213 2007-10-15 06:14:47

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#214 2007-10-15 06:52:57

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#215 2007-10-15 07:52:19

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#216 2007-10-15 08:21:05

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#217 2007-10-15 08:24:28

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#218 2007-10-15 09:47:13

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#219 2007-10-15 10:03:03

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#220 2007-10-15 10:57:36

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#221 2007-10-15 11:17:16

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#222 2007-10-15 11:21:32

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#223 2007-10-15 11:30:16

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#224 2007-10-15 11:33:25

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#225 2007-10-15 14:19:17

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

Board footer