Arch Linux logo concept

thayer · 2007-10-16 18:18:46

Nice Matt3o, we've got a separate thread just for posting concepts if you wouldn't mind adding it there too that'd be great.

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=290071

finferflu · 2007-10-16 18:28:15

I'll have to admit that I really detest the font used for the logo, if that could be changed too it would be great...

foxbunny · 2007-10-16 18:38:48

@ Matt3o

Great stuff, man. Really like it.

@ Mikko777

You've gotta be kidding? Mepis and Arch in the same group? Damn. Anyway, I think the current logo in the Tango variant works quite nicely in the top 50.

The only problem is, Tango variant is usually NOT associated with Arch, at least for people who actually look at Distrowatch. I pointed that out before:

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

When you have a page like this, people simply assume that the 'right' logo is the first one:

http://www.archlinux.org/art/

Look at that: at least 3 versions (bacause B/W cannot possibly be an official logo these days), and the first one is the 'ugly' one... Don't get me wrong, it's not ugly 'ugly'. But it certainly doesn't work for me for some reason. It lacks the finesse of the Tango version.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-16 18:44:13)

foxbunny · 2007-10-16 19:11:21

@thayer.w
Your last logo (#15), although very nice, breaks several of your own rules/suggestions...

freigeist · 2007-10-16 19:11:45

thayer.w wrote:

Nice Matt3o, we've got a separate thread just for posting concepts if you wouldn't mind adding it there too that'd be great.
http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=290071

Just some suggestions to your concepts:

The last blueprint of a possible new arch logo "architectural arch" shows some big potential in my opinion...it would be really great if we could convince the community to change the current logo to a more progressive one. I think it must be

- Simple
- Clean
- Pale Colored
- Unique
- Recognizable even at small sizes
- associate to an arch

If I look at all the logos of other distros you put together, I would say that these are the most professional looking ones:

- FreeBSD because of its great redesign of the small devil, with an overwhelming pseudo 3-dimensional look
- Redhat because of the easy recognizable and unique idea of the "red hat" (but the logo looks a bit old school)
- Freespire because of its simplicity

And I think you are on the right track with your textstyle (bold arch and normal linux), even if Redhat uses the same idea. The Alpha logo is nice but reminds me too much of an "A". The boomerang logo is a great and unique idea but still missing something. The architectural logo has nice pale colors, but the perspective of the arch irritates me...maybe I have some spare time during the next days and I will throw in another idea...

foxbunny · 2007-10-16 19:18:07

Nice call, freigeist.

Also, while you all are at it, maybe we could also change the font. I like the current one very much, but I'm proposing a new typeface because of the practical reasons. We need, IMHO, a font that is free for any kind of use (and preferably even modification), because it would be more convenient for artists to d/l the font and slap on any kind of text, and not just the "archlinux". Don't get me wront, I'm not proposing to change the text on the logo. Just the font. To a free one (as in freedom, that is).

Also, taking a look at the FreeBSD logo page could give you some idea of what a complete contest submission could look like if we were to do it right.

http://www.freebsd.org/logo.html

Of course, don't rule out the possibility of working in teams.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-16 19:20:44)

Xilon · 2007-10-16 19:26:58

The logo shouldn't actually have any text in it. On a banner or something you can have both, but a logo is supposed to be uniquely identified, and the text is just... redundant really. The logo shouldn't need to have the text there to explain the graphics.

It seems most of these logos are just derivatives of the current one. There's no need for two arches, one is enough. The arch doesn't have to have pointy ends either. I think it needs to be a bit more original...

So far I like the "Alpha" logo the most, though it's not so much representational of an arch...

foxbunny · 2007-10-16 19:57:17

Not the text like: "This is Arch, I love it!" or "Just do Arch". I meant the "archlinux" text that accompanies the logo. Of course, it is not necessary to integrate it with the logo itself. But there should be some presentation of how the text (a.k.a. logotype) works with the logo.

foxbunny · 2007-10-16 20:05:56

Okay, I have here the submission form (the draft) of what an blank entry could look like:

Plain SVG:

http://foxbunny.team88.org/submission_form.svg

Inkscape SVG (.svgz):

http://foxbunny.team88.org/submission_form.svgz

PNG version:

A valid entry should, IMHO, be able to fill out all the cells except the last one.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-16 20:09:02)

thayer · 2007-10-16 21:02:11

To keep things simple, and to prevent good concepts from being rejected, I think the only requirements for submission should be the following:

* Scalable Vector Graphic (it must be able to scale up and down to any resolution without significant loss of detail)
* Full color version (as many colours as you like...strokes, gradients, etc.)
* One color version (e.g. all black)

If a design is chosen with those 3 requirements met, then all other versions can be reproduced afterwards; either by the artist or by the community.

Edit:

I also wanted to say that your template looks great and is definitely helpful. If I may make a suggestion, I think the boxes would be more compatible with full colour examples if the backgrounds were white--I'm referring to all of the boxes below the 3 primary examples (light, dark and black backgrounds).

Last edited by thayer.w (2007-10-16 22:47:03)

foxbunny · 2007-10-16 22:26:43

thayer.w wrote:

To keep things simple, and to prevent good concepts from being considered, I think the only requirements for submission should be the following:
<SNIPPAGE>
If a design is chosen with those 3 requirements met, then all other versions can be reproduced afterwards; either by the artist or by the community.

I assume you meant that we need to keep the process simple in order to prevent rejection of good concepts? Well, IMO, this is a community project, and I don't think people should try to fill the form by themselves. I personally would be more than happy to do minor adjustments to others' works to help them out. The point is, we are making something that will be there for a long time, and there is no point in simplifying the process for the sake of it.

If it can be done afterwards, it can also be done before, don't you think?

For example, why only 1-color version? That makes no sense. One color version is used fairly rarely compared to 2 color version.

Of course, the many variants that I have 'requested' on my proposed form do not have to be executed perfectly. They can always be fine-tuned later. Let's just say they are like proof of concept. But I think it is also important that the artists who are going to disign THE Arch logo should be willing to work beyong their basic version, or show the ability to communicate and collaborate with other community members.

thayer.w wrote:

I also wanted to say that your template looks great and is definitely helpful. If I may make a suggestion, I think the boxes would be more compatible with full colour examples if the backgrounds were white--I'm referring to all of the boxes below the 3 primary examples (light, dark and black backgrounds).

The boxes have to be grey (except the white one) for two reasons:

1. white distracts from the features of the logo
2. colors behave quite differently on light and dark backgrounds, so there needs to be a neutral bg (or as neutral as possible)

I will make the light gray boxes even darker, actually, but light enough to be easily recognizable. The white box is provided precisely to show how a logo will behave on white background.

EDIT:

As for scaling down the logo, if you read the Tango specs carefully, you'll notice that having a vector image is not enough for scaling to very small sizes. It almost never is. In modern typography, they even include separate versions of the font for smaller sizes. So, having a SVG file does NOT prove the logo will scale. Therefore, there needs to be a pre-scaled variant attached to the concept. Or else we don't know if it scales well.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-16 22:42:57)

foxbunny · 2007-10-16 22:54:22

Okay, I've made three items optional in the submission form, and am quite happy about how it looks atm.

SVG version:

See this post: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 30#p290130

The links are updated.

PNG version:

Sample submission:

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-17 00:00:09)

thayer · 2007-10-16 23:10:57

If it can be done afterwards, it can also be done before, don't you think?

foxbunny, what I'm saying is that we shouldn't tell people "Sorry, your logo can't even be considered a candidate because you haven't done a tango version of it..or a 16x16 icon version of it". That's nonsense, and I don't think they should have to rely on others to add in the extra bits first either.

For example, why only 1-color version? That makes no sense. One color version is used fairly rarely compared to 2 color version.

It's simply to show that the logo--despite any gradients, strokes, bevels and drop shadows--will degrade well when displayed in a single flat colour; or, as you pointed out before, an alternative version can be provided for single colour use.

One colour logos are used quite commonly, whether as watermarks, or for splash screens, SLiM/GDM/KDM themes, conky fonts, etc., etc.

So, having a SVG file does NOT prove the logo will scale.

But having a raster file proves it won't scale at all. A vector image may need tweaks at extreme sizes, but because it's a vector graphic this is very easy to do. A raster image will never scale up well... ever. There's no point in considering a rasterized image.

foxbunny · 2007-10-16 23:37:23

thayer.w wrote:

It's simply to show that the logo--despite any gradients, strokes, bevels and drop shadows--will degrade well when displayed in a single flat colour; or, as you pointed out before, an alternative version can be provided for single colour use.

So, basically, you're saying that it is BS to ask for say 16px version and everything else, and then it's okay to ask for a couple of variants? You either do the different variants (with or without the help of others) or you don't. You either prove that your work can scale well, degrade well, and adapt to different use cases (iow, the whole package) or you don't.

thayer.w wrote:

One colour logos are used quite commonly, whether as watermarks, or for splash screens, SLiM/GDM/KDM themes, conky fonts, etc., etc.

Yes, and those can be created later as well as the 16px versions. I don't see how a single color vairant is more important than the 16px scale-down, ESPECIALLY since 16px variants are not as straightforward as simply dragging the resize handles in Inkscape.

thayer.w wrote:

But having a raster file proves it won't scale at all. A vector image may need tweaks at extreme sizes, but because it's a vector graphic this is very easy to do. A raster image will never scale up well... ever. There's no point in considering a rasterized image.

They don't need to scale. You can recreate smaller sizes in raster format. More work, but if you feel comfortable with GIMP more than with Inkscape, why not? For typical use, you can only go as high as definite size. No one says you need to light up the entire sky with your logo. As for smaller sizes, there is only a predefined set of sizes you will only ever need. And people using Inkscape will be able to provide both raster and vector images, so there isn't a problem there either.

And I am saying this again (and will say it as many times as necessary), simply scaling down the SVG artwork is NOT creating small icons. It's more like zooming out. Sure it can work for some designs, but if scale-downs were the requirement, many logos (Samsung, for example) would not be created at all. I have shown you before the a few different ways to create a favicon that are not simple scale-downs. Do not limit yourself with silly requirements if you have a good idea, but deal with the requirements the way you see fit.

Simple example of my point. Tango set. The outline is ALWAYS 1px, regardless of the size. If you scale down a 1px outline by 50%, you get .5px outline. Not good in the Tango set. So you readjust the outline. Say you have a gap of 1 px between two things. You scale down. The gap is now .5px wide. You readjust the outlines of the two things to 1px. The gap is closed completely because the outlines on both sides grew by .5px (.25px to each side). You now have a choked artwork. You then have to move the two outlines apart so that you have the gap again. If you want to avoid this, you'd have to either work bottom-up by starting with a 16px art, or create a fairly simple artwork. In the former case, you are severely misguided by the strange proportions.

Tux, the Linux icon, was created in GIMP, btw. So, you still don't consider raster images?

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-16 23:48:55)

thayer · 2007-10-16 23:47:07

I disagree on all points, except that icons are not simply resized SVG's... but whatever the devs decide (if they decide to consider anything) is what will dictate my submissions. KISS.

Last edited by thayer.w (2007-10-17 00:44:11)

foxbunny · 2007-10-16 23:54:03

Let me put it this way. If devs pick a logo, and it turns out the logo won't scale or degrade, or anything. They'll need to ask for a redesign of the logo, or ask for more concepts. If this is going to be a community effort (that is, carried out by mostly non-core people), it's going to have to create less work for the devs. I don't think selfishness and ego here should ask for simplification of the process. People can help people, and there it should be no trouble for individuals to complete their submission. And devs will have enough to decide.

(of course, atm, there isn't a contest going on anyway)

thayer, the last concept #17/3 is AWSOME.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-17 00:01:21)

foxbunny · 2007-10-17 00:55:14

New concept:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 16#p290216

thayer · 2007-10-17 05:37:18

Arch Nemesis - going back to the roots...

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 63#p290263

neotuli · 2007-10-17 06:50:07

@thayer: is there an svg of the nemesis logo someplace?

Matt3o · 2007-10-17 07:53:29

various rantlings.

- I agree the font needs to meet the logo and I feel that the actual type doesn't go well with any of the concepts proposed (except dunc's probably)
- I have to agree with thayer.w: the requirements proposed by foxbunny for a logo submission are a bit extreme . In my opinion big, small, negative, monochrome versions are enough. I also agree that a SVG version is highly preferred over a raster one. Say one day you need to print on a billboard Anyway I thing this should be a collaborative work. If one can't work in vector and hers logo is selected I think nobody would argue if a vectorist convert it for her.
- Very little has been said about colors selection. Have a look at the following picture:

(Sorry very quickly done). To me it would be nice if we could avoid blue and red. There's a clear void in the purple area. There are also some shades of deep-orange that are missing and yellow.

Last edited by Matt3o (2007-10-17 07:56:55)

foxbunny · 2007-10-17 10:13:57

Very nicely done! Don't worry bout the quickness, the artwork is quite informative as it is. Mandriva goes under Blue, though. It's theme color is blue. Also, Suse is converging on blue.

Anyway, Blue seems to be quite an established theme nowadays. Tehnology color as they call it. Red is associated with security. Orange is for passion, whereas Ubuntu uses the mix of warm colors (red, orange, brown) to get a more humane, warm feel. Green is usually associated with friendliness and community spirit, as well as nature. Arch also uses the warmer color to complement the blue, which is IMHO, very nice and quite rare.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention. Purple and Violet are colors that are associated with the mystical, and magick. Therefore, those are the most confusing colors of them all. Exception is the magenta area (between red and purple), which is usually associated with happiness and joy. The yellow is the most unpopular color in the marketing world. I don't have an explanation for this, but yellowish magazine covers sell less than red and blue. I believe it has to do with the fact that yellow is usually associated with work and chores.

However, there are cultural differences that may make some color either more positive or negative. If I'm not mistaken, yellow is the imperial color in China. Some color combos have reserved meanings which would make them hard to use in this particular case: green-red for Christmas, or yellow-red for Communist insignia.

Now, you also have to note the colors used in the desktop themes. Visit http://shots.osdir.com/ to get a sneak peek at the desktops.

Another note. We also have to classify (if we are going to analyze the market) according to target users. Though, I don't find it necessary to do that. Anyway, for those that feel analyzing the market will yield superior results, here's a not-so-complete list:

1. Enterprise distros: RedHat, Suse, Mandriva, Impi, Xandros, Linspire
2. Community versions of enterprise distros: openSUSE, Mandriva, Feodora, Freespire (both *spires can also go into home / gp category)
3. IT professional distros (a.k.a. geek distros): Gentoo, Slackware, Arch Linux, Debian, FreeBSD, openBSD
4. Home / general purpose: Ubuntu (and derivatives except Studio and Christian ed. etc), Slax, Mepis, PCLinuxOS, Sabayon, Dreamlinux, KateOS, VectorLinux
5. Enthusiast / non-IT professional: Ubuntu Studio, Ubuntu Christian ed, some Slax versions

etc. etc.

<edit> Note here that we are not talking about the practical application of the mentioned distros, but the kind of users those distros tend to attract. And also note that this is merely a suggestion of how things might look in the real world. </edit>

Now, there is another factor. Corporate vs Community backing:

Corporate backed: RedHat, Suse, Mandriva, Linspire, Xandros, Ubuntu*, openSUSE
Foundation based: Gentoo, Debian, FreeBSD (I guess I've missed a few here)
Community backed: Ubuntu*, openSUSE**, Slackware, Arch Linux, Mepis, KateOS, Slax, etc. etc.

* Ubuntu is partially *directed* by Canonical, so it is NOT a pure community distro
** Much of openSUSE PR is handled by Novell people so it is more of a Corporate backed distro

<edit> Why this classification is significant? Corporate-backed distros are part of the business model of their patrons. As such, they are not just live projects, but also branded goods that patrons will repackage to sell. They are carrying the brand, and therefore make a huge impact on the patron's reputation. Therefore, PR activities of those projects are either directed (as with Ubuntu) or controlled (like openSUSE) by patrons. They tend to have a more complete corporate identity and a more 'professional' design of both the brand-related imagery as well as the desktop themes. So the perception of 'professionalism' is usually associated with the day-to-day contact people have with the 'big league' distros.

Foundations try to do the same, but with less controll, because their projects are not part of any established business model.

Community distros tend to have a more chaotic approach, which is usually based on the wishes of the principal developer, the development team, or a group of core users. One notable exception is the KDE team, which seems to have a dedicated and influential PR team, which is doing a very professional job of directing the community at various levels.</edit>

What makes Arch unique is that it's user-base is not exclusively IT pros. There are artists, and other groups here because of the need for latest software (that's how I started at least) and ease of maintenance. So it's basically a mish-mash of IT-pros and IT or non-IT technology enthusiasts. Debian comes really close to this as well. So there is a group outside of this classification that includes the likes of Arch Linux, Debian and Slackware. In essence, the group is more or less the result of the way these distros are made. They are highly customizable (thanks to large software repos in the first place) and therefore also attract mastered Linux users who are not strictly IT people.

As for requirements, I've already said that this is a community effort to which you, Matt3o, agreed. So it is then a question of whether we do the necessary variations before or after the logo is chosen. IMNSHO, the former approach is less complicated on the long run, as we will be able to see the ACTUAL performance of the logos before the lack thereof starts to show when it's too late. It is easier, I think, to do things right in the beginning than to fix things later, which can also result in a poorer quality, or less complete experience. As I said, less work for devs, quicker route to choosing the best solution...

I volunteer, of course, to help anyone who is interested, by:

1. polishing the logos
2. creating necessary variants
3. finding fonts, adjusting the kerns, etc
4. converting raster to vector and vice versa

I think there are more people here who are capable of offering similar help to others, so I encourage you all to opt for more complete submissions, and ask for help. We can open a separate thread for help with concepts, if there is need.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-17 10:46:57)

Matt3o · 2007-10-17 10:47:03

I think we are a very preliminary phase... I'd say brainstorming. As far as I know there's no official request for a new logo all this work could be easily ignored I think foxbunny's submission layout is great but probably needed only in a more advanced phase. Anyway I'll try to use it the next time, I think is a good way to see if the logo works everywhere.

Last edited by Matt3o (2007-10-17 10:48:48)

foxbunny · 2007-10-17 10:56:25

Yeah, I agree that we don't need it yet... I'm not using it atm either.

For people who want to try out different variations, or maybe ask for some different form of help, I've opened a thread here:

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=38666

One small note about the three backgrounds in the submission form. If you put a logo on the black surface and see that it doesn't work, you can tweak the colors to make it better. That will then count as a separate version which will be used on the dark surfaces. However, please notify us of such changes in the comment box (top right).

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-17 10:56:47)

Matt3o · 2007-10-17 12:17:08

lame logo updated http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 82#p290082
I'll try something better when I get some spare time.

what to avoid IMHO:

Last edited by Matt3o (2007-10-17 12:22:07)

foxbunny · 2007-10-17 12:33:45

http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 26#p290326

freigeist, nice sharp logo there. But maybe a bit too tall?

Matt3o, I think the current logotype matches better with your logo concept. Nice color, though. Don't know how well it goes with arch.

You know what I think, guys. Arch being all-console after install and all, I think (and 'tis but IMHO) a touch of black may leave a good aftertaste. We only have to be careful and keep in mind the logo would have to be used as the boot splash icon as well. Arch may be lightweight, but it's not a light distro.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-17 12:37:45)

Arch Linux

#276 2007-10-16 18:18:46

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#277 2007-10-16 18:28:15

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#278 2007-10-16 18:38:48

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#279 2007-10-16 19:11:21

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#280 2007-10-16 19:11:45

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#281 2007-10-16 19:18:07

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#282 2007-10-16 19:26:58

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#283 2007-10-16 19:57:17

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#284 2007-10-16 20:05:56

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#285 2007-10-16 21:02:11

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#286 2007-10-16 22:26:43

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#287 2007-10-16 22:54:22

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#288 2007-10-16 23:10:57

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#289 2007-10-16 23:37:23

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#290 2007-10-16 23:47:07

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#291 2007-10-16 23:54:03

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#292 2007-10-17 00:55:14

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#293 2007-10-17 05:37:18

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#294 2007-10-17 06:50:07

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#295 2007-10-17 07:53:29

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#296 2007-10-17 10:13:57

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#297 2007-10-17 10:47:03

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#298 2007-10-17 10:56:25

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#299 2007-10-17 12:17:08

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#300 2007-10-17 12:33:45

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

Board footer