Arch Linux logo concept

Acid7711 · 2007-10-04 21:06:25

Wow, I like it! Great work.

ralvez · 2007-10-04 22:51:28

I like some of the latest designs better but I think that a logo is such an important "icon" for any organization that changing it is not a light thing.
I'm a strong believer that "if it is not broken do not fix it", and to be honest the current logo is just fine.
Now ... do not get me wrong, your designs are just fine (especially the last ones ) but if Arch is any thing like the last organization I was working for I can tell you that it took well over 3 years of strong arguments to change the company logo ... at this point I'm inclined to believe that logos, OSes and religion are very touchy matters .

Mikko777 · 2007-10-05 00:28:21

new leader, new logo?

but there should be competition and voting
There's been 2 great desing before also, one was from freigeist and other more never one was great too.

T-u-N-i-X · 2007-10-05 10:42:24

I definitely don't like Arch's actual logo.. It's somehow boring and old fashioned.. I really love the concept in these logos.. There should be a vote or something like that I think.. I'm confused which logo to select Any way, I think the devs should select 2 or 3 logos and create a poll for it.. Arch should change with time upto the smallest milestone like logos, images, icons etc...

I hope the logos will be included soon..

PJ · 2007-10-05 13:22:48

Made a quick one.

ralvez · 2007-10-05 14:43:51

I like PJ's logo more than the previous options ... not sure the arrow is the right complement (excuse my non-graphic arts language here) to the overall design but I think this one is running 'on the right track', at least for my taste.

R.

Last edited by ralvez (2007-10-05 14:47:43)

Cerebral · 2007-10-05 14:50:00

ralvez wrote:

at least for my taste.

Heh, I caught that before you edited it. Darn funny typo there.

Anyway, I prefer Thayer's to PJ's personally, but that's just me. AFAIK there's really been no dev-side discussion about logo - I'll make an assumption that it means we're all relatively satisfied with the current one top-left.

However, I do recall the last logo thread that I read mentioned that there's no need to have the "one Arch logo to rule them all" - I don't think the one on the website is the be-all-end-all arch logo, it just happens to be what we use. *shrug*

thayer · 2007-10-05 16:31:42

Nearly finished... I just have to do some minor optimizations for smaller sizes, etc.:

ralvez: So true... I think the lack of such decisions is largely attributable to the fact that many projects and NPO's don't really have a clear media/marketing strategy.

Cerebral: Thanks for joining in. Regardless of whether your decision is the final say or not, it's nice to hear from some upper management. I understand that the general developers may not be concerned with such matters, but there must be someone in the ranks who is in control of the media aspect of Arch, such as magazine publishings, sponsorhips, etc. Would that be Judd or Aaron?

I won't say the current logo is bad, because obviously it has worked for Arch this long and has accumulated a loyal fan base. I do believe however, that it could be better, and that perhaps it does not reflect the professionalism and maturity that the Arch Linux project has reached since its inception. I truly see Arch being on the verge of something "big". Not in the sense of Ubuntu and it's "Linux for the masses" approach, but definitely in the sense that people are starting to take notice. I wouldn't be surprised if by this time next year, Arch has been featured in every major Linux publication. It's for this reason that I feel so strongly about putting the best foot forward and making a solid first impression.

Now, I'm not saying I think my logo should be the one to replace our little "archy". All I'm saying is that Arch is officially heading into a new era of direction, and now is perhaps the best time to reflect our current situation and make some fundamental decisions about where we're going and just how we're going to get there. Maybe it's just the web designer in me, but I do feel that "image" plays a role in such decisions. Arch has matured into a solid and respectable distribution, and I think it's branding should reflect that stability.

Whether that's decided by vote, or the choice of one director, it matters not to me.

fwojciec · 2007-10-05 17:08:24

Thayer - those look great!!! Now I'm waiting for some new GDM/Slim themes

heavenquake · 2007-10-05 17:21:27

While I think these logos look quite nice, I don't really see them as worthy combatants to the current logo. The current logo seems more 'complete' - I couldn't imagine this new one in multiple colours and arrangements, I'm sorry.

But I do like it, and it could supplement the current Arch Logo quite well on a number of occasions. No need to stick with one logo for everything.

Mikko777 · 2007-10-05 17:24:13

last revision looks nice yes... im sold atleast when you compare that to the current star trek logo.

thayer · 2007-10-05 17:36:47

fwojciec, I'll definitely do up some SLiM themes (and probably GDM).

heavenquake, I won't dispute your opinion about the logo being a worthy combatant to the current logo (I think it is, but that's just me). I do however disagree with you with respect to multiple colours and arrangements. The problem with logos like the existing one is that they don't work well at all when combined with other designs such as wallpapers, or when used as splash or boot screens.

Gradients don't do well at anything less than 24-bit color and at 256 colors or less they look simply horrible. You end up with a lot of dithering, rough edges and mismatched colors, (e.g. the framebuffer logos we have now.) The same goes for drop shadows of any kind. Also, the more color an image has, the more it will clash with anything it's placed next to, or on top of. When you strip "archy" down to one color, it really loses what style it does have.

I also agree that there's no need to stick with just one logo and fan art usually takes that to the nth degree. I do think though, that an official logo should be robust and versatile while remaining clean and professional.

PJ · 2007-10-05 18:44:46

ralvez wrote:

I like PJ's logo more than the previous options ... not sure the arrow is the right complement (excuse my non-graphic arts language here) to the overall design but I think this one is running 'on the right track', at least for my taste.
R.

Thanks.

The arrow was mostly there because I made my own version of thayer.w's logo. Here's a version without the arrow:

svg - second version
svg - first version

I really don't think I am going to do much more work on this.

Gullible Jones · 2007-10-05 19:06:22

Okay, I'm going to post my $0.02 in the form of a badly edited version of the logo.

My thoughts can basically be summed up as: "a rounded top would look much, much better." I'm thinking something along the lines of the above, only a bit pointier (i.e. narrower top with a smaller arc, a parabola would just look bizarre). And without the aliasing, obviously.

Jessehk · 2007-10-05 20:23:48

Gullible Jones wrote:

Okay, I'm going to post my $0.02 in the form of a badly edited version of the logo.
<IMAGE SNIPPED>
My thoughts can basically be summed up as: "a rounded top would look much, much better." I'm thinking something along the lines of the above, only a bit pointier (i.e. narrower top with a smaller arc, a parabola would just look bizarre). And without the aliasing, obviously.

I actually disagree; I like the pointed edges.

ralvez · 2007-10-05 21:25:58

@Cerebral,

Heh, I caught that before you edited it. Darn funny typo there.

I'm laughing at it yet

R.

dunc · 2007-10-06 00:38:23

thayer.w wrote:

* dunc, in keeping with the *swoosh* of the current logo I chose the arrow as the crossbar with the added meaning that we're Archers... archers... bow...arrows.. get the *point*?

D'oh! Yep, makes sense now.

I must say, though, I prefer your first ideas to the way you've developed it. It looks a bit "heavy-footed" now. Gullible's rounding of the top works better than I expected, but that *&%! shadow's back! And wooptoo's treatment of the black background is excellent. I'm definitely warming to this.

Incidentally, I'm usually up for having a stab at this sort of thing myself, but I just can't seem to get a handle on this one...

Last edited by dunc (2007-10-06 00:54:05)

Echo · 2007-10-06 01:11:37

dunc wrote:

I must say, though, I prefer your first ideas to the way you've developed it. It looks a bit "heavy-footed" now.

+1

rson451 · 2007-10-06 01:20:22

yah im not to keen on the umm serrifs? on the right foot of the A. imo much better before.

Cogar · 2007-10-06 09:41:26

All of them are fine. I prefer the one Gullible Jones posted, though.

tlaloc · 2007-10-06 10:54:37

Gullible's version looks good, and I don't see why the right foot should be expanded at all.

Last edited by tlaloc (2007-10-06 10:55:04)

voonte · 2007-10-06 11:14:39

thayer.w, excellent work. The colors and the shape looks great. I'm not sure about the "foot" of the A, but overall it's shaping up nicely. The current logo really does need a change.

DonVla · 2007-10-06 13:35:28

freigeist wrote:

thayer.w wrote:
http://www.cinderwick.ca/files/20071003 … o-pale.png
I really like the right one, the white border around the arrow looks much more professional. I would prefer the text being below the graphic. It would be interesting to hear how likely a logo change is. As some may remember I also proposed a new logo earlier this year: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=28444

WOW!!! really really good, though a little too sophisticated. but wow (again).

vlad

codemac · 2007-10-06 14:37:53

I think they look great! I don't know how soon you'd be able to get other people to adopt a new logo, as that would encourage a redesign all over again. Not to mention experienced arch users like Gullible Jones usually will prefer the rounded top. It looks more akin to what we're used to in arch logos.. you know... showing an arch

Great work though. It always makes us devs happy when instead of "suggesting" something, someone actually just goes off and implements it.

Gullible Jones · 2007-10-06 18:43:25

Actually the one with the slanted top doesn't look so bad, except for the foot-thing.

Arch Linux

#51 2007-10-04 21:06:25

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#52 2007-10-04 22:51:28

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#53 2007-10-05 00:28:21

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#54 2007-10-05 10:42:24

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#55 2007-10-05 13:22:48

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#56 2007-10-05 14:43:51

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#57 2007-10-05 14:50:00

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#58 2007-10-05 16:31:42

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#59 2007-10-05 17:08:24

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#60 2007-10-05 17:21:27

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#61 2007-10-05 17:24:13

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#62 2007-10-05 17:36:47

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#63 2007-10-05 18:44:46

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#64 2007-10-05 19:06:22

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#65 2007-10-05 20:23:48

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#66 2007-10-05 21:25:58

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#67 2007-10-06 00:38:23

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#68 2007-10-06 01:11:37

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#69 2007-10-06 01:20:22

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#70 2007-10-06 09:41:26

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#71 2007-10-06 10:54:37

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#72 2007-10-06 11:14:39

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#73 2007-10-06 13:35:28

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#74 2007-10-06 14:37:53

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#75 2007-10-06 18:43:25

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

Board footer