Arch Linux logo concept

Sigi · 2007-10-27 16:49:37

Well, I have a new design (again). I'd really like to receive feedback!
My new logo

Cheers Sigi

foxbunny · 2007-10-27 18:12:27

About the Arial replacement... Yes. ANY font is better than Arial, Helvetica, Times New Roman, and a few others.

When I saw that concept, I was like... hm... I've seen it somewhere, and then I went through my SVGs to find a very similar looking one...

Hm, I don't know what to make of it. I kind of like it, but at the same time, there are many things that are not 'just right'. The blue ring thing, for example. I think it could be larger. Also, try to lose "linux", in ARCHlinux, make ARCH bigger, and fit linux below that, but small. The right let is too long. Either change its shape somehow to justify its length or shorten it... I like the length, though, so I'd suggest length... That's it for now... My Inkscape is still rendering something so I can't help you with mockups, sorry.

Sigi · 2007-10-27 20:17:00

foxbunny wrote:

About the Arial replacement... Yes. ANY font is better than Arial, Helvetica, Times New Roman, and a few others.

Agreed, I found a nice one.

foxbunny wrote:

When I saw that concept, I was like... hm... I've seen it somewhere, and then I went through my SVGs to find a very similar looking one...
Hm, I don't know what to make of it. I kind of like it, but at the same time, there are many things that are not 'just right'. The blue ring thing, for example. I think it could be larger. Also, try to lose "linux", in ARCHlinux, make ARCH bigger, and fit linux below that, but small. The right let is too long. Either change its shape somehow to justify its length or shorten it... I like the length, though, so I'd suggest length... That's it for now... My Inkscape is still rendering something so I can't help you with mockups, sorry.

Agreed. New version and a wallpaper. Like them better? I do

foxbunny · 2007-10-27 20:41:28

The font is nice in itself, but I think you need something wider for your design... And now the blue band seems too thick...

I thought I'd do a mockup of something for you, but then I noticed it doesn't look that good. So, sry, no mockup.

But then I god inspired and did something completely different. Will post in a sec.

And here it is: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 06#p293706

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-27 20:50:39)

TheBodziO · 2007-10-27 22:03:03

foxbunny wrote:

Oh? Then down to two registered.
Anyone else doing pro design? There's gotta be more...

That's +1

TheBodziO · 2007-10-27 22:32:11

foxbunny wrote:

@devs, travis, thayer, cerise
Is there a possibility that the three most vocal community members here (glances at thayer, cerise), including myself plus the designer of a winning logo, and newsletter authors, be nominated as the dedicated PR team for Arch Linux? If we can agree there should be such an unit within the Arch Community, we could discuss the details of what such a team would do for Arch and post a guideline/proposal in the Arch Wiki for devs to review and decide.

Pardon me to break into discussion like this...

Since we started to recognize some of our "specialities" on the design/dtp/design ground. Wouldn't it be good to form an arch team to uphold not only a pr/visual for arch but also to help devs of design tools for linux in general? I mean... there's many people using arch and beeing in graphics business as their profession. During such work one collects a serious knowledge about current top software tools, their strenghts and deficiencies. This is an information worth a lot for designers who are devoted to writing code. In the end that's designers that should benefit from their efforts. The more people will speak about what they want the better.

My proposition is simple: a group - formed in whatever fashion - should also discuss an issues that currently comes to their mind (maybe as recent annoyance, problem, idea) about design tools and after stating one common solution or proposition, present it to the devs of apropriate tool. Maybe even - if a tool doesn't exists currently - attempt to start a project that would fulfill the gap. That way the community will be able to have a broader view on the field of graphic design or design as a whole and state what more is needed to complete a full spectrum toolset for pros.

Maybe someday it will be even possible to create a common meeting point for all devs and designers scattered all around the oss world. Currently there's a couple of such points that are rather "project specific". There's some degree of collaboration between devs but - from my point of view - insufficient if oss has somewhere in the future produce a serious, to some extent integrated, design platform.

What do you think?

foxbunny · 2007-10-27 22:45:35

That is probably out of scope of Arch development. I would rather have a dedicated portal for that purpose and have summaries CC'd to Aaron or (even better) the mailing list. However, I'm no developer, so I can't help with technicalities.

I'm currently thinking of creating a LiveCD (never done it before, so I'm sort of waiting for that wonder script that is currently in development within the Arch dev team) bundled with various tools for graphic design. Maybe this could be taken to another level by creating a dedicated graphics repo. That wuold probably draw in more graphics people, and spur a more lively discussion. What do you think?

I have plenty of hosting space for such a project, although no dedicated server...

Okay, let's take this off this thread to a dedicated one: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php? … 33#p293733

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-27 23:04:56)

Sigi · 2007-10-28 00:26:48

foxbunny wrote:

I'm currently thinking of creating a LiveCD (never done it before, so I'm sort of waiting for that wonder script that is currently in development within the Arch dev team) bundled with various tools for graphic design.

Why waiting for such a script? Try gradgrind's larch-scripts, they're great! (Follow the link in my sig)

foxbunny · 2007-10-28 01:10:17

Hm, you're right. I'll give it a go. Can it 'livize' an installed system?

Sigi · 2007-10-28 01:20:44

foxbunny wrote:

Hm, you're right. I'll give it a go. Can it 'livize' an installed system?

Yes. But I haven't tried this yet.

Repo:
[larch]
Server = ftp://archie.dotsrc.org/projects/archie/larch/testing/

edit: I just made a wallpaper with my latest logo. Inkscape rocks! -> [svg]

Last edited by Sigi (2007-10-28 01:29:01)

TheBodziO · 2007-10-28 02:00:17

foxbunny wrote:

That is probably out of scope of Arch development. I would rather have a dedicated portal for that purpose and have summaries CC'd to Aaron or (even better) the mailing list. However, I'm no developer, so I can't help with technicalities.

I agree that the question cannot be associated with arch development per se, yet I think that it is important and valid for whole linux/free community. Why shouldn't we start such initiative here... at arch? A dedicated portal would be a great, wonderful, marvellous thig for starters! I couldn't agree more. Of course after creating such place the word should've been spread as broadly as possible to earn some momentum to the project.

You've said that you're not developer still I think that you could help (a lot!) in this or that project. Some things are self understandable and unquestionable in making graphics software (as making fast display engine e.g.) but there are many things that can be decided, resolved or proposed only by people who use software in every-day work scenario. People who knows what they need to make their work better, faster, more comfortable (add anything that can please such user ). This way we could stop a catch-up game with adobe/corel/anything and start to create something really innovative. Last brainstorm about gimp interface is a good example and way to go IMO. That is why I think that you actually can help! Only you are able to tell "This dialog is getting in my way all the time while I draw. It would be much better if it would be placed docked on toolbar." or "I'd love to be able to have a possibility to define this object height relative to that objects width." (known from computer geometry sandboxes).

Even I have something to add in such discussion. There's a thing that is bugging me in all oses that I touch: font list. Why does it have to be a list? Now... seriously? Why shouldn't I be able to cathegorize my fonts by myself and have them grouped in a tree instead of flat list. True: there are font managers (grouping/loading/unloading/installing/uninstalling/preview) but they are just separate apps that I have run to switch this or that fonts on and off and still I have to scroll through a list in e.g. inkscape or illustrator or... you name it . True: there's sometimes automatic grouping of serifs, sans-serifs but what if I want to create my own cathegory "body text" or "titling"? Me wants it :>... badly... Yet I don't have time to write even a proof of concept. Maybe somebody else would like that feature too. If so I think we could politely convince some dev with a bit of free time to implement the feature. A small thing... yes... but also a feature that ease the work.

And this is just one... I've got more

I'm currently thinking of creating a LiveCD (never done it before, so I'm sort of waiting for that wonder script that is currently in development within the Arch dev team) bundled with various tools for graphic design. Maybe this could be taken to another level by creating a dedicated graphics repo. That wuold probably draw in more graphics people, and spur a more lively discussion. What do you think?

Yes! I concur! Do so. There's never enough of good projects. There's http://ubuntustudio.org/. I think arch shoud be also present among designer-oriented live cd's since its simplicity and speed predestine it for such uses.

--

I'm also curious what others think about pan-distro, pan-oss connection point between developers and designers. Maybe having a part of arch wiki designated for ideas and analyses will constitute a first seed?

PDExperiment626 · 2007-10-28 04:05:36

I've been watching this thread for about a week now and figured I'd drop in my two cents on some of the current discussion.

First, it's not exactly clear to me what exactly the purpose of making a 'group of tools' targeted at designers. Personally, I have a hard time seeing why a graphic designer would need a live CD. Given that graphics design requires non-trivial hardware (for most modern designs), I don't see graphics artists using anything but a dedicated graphics workstation. So, what is really the purpose of a liveCD?

Also, arch isn't Ubuntu. Talk of making designer 'tools' for this distro is something that I thought the devs wanted to avoid. Indeed, the devs have avoided any serious branding attempts up until very recently. Making a bunch of arch-specific programs, tools, whatever for design seems to be going down the path Ubuntu took; and that's not something arch has done in the past. Maybe I've misinterpreted what is being proposed. If that is the case, please clarify what the purpose of a 'design group' and 'design tool" associated with arch would be.

Personally, I've seen many professional designers produce poor design ideas; I don't put weight behind the term 'professional designer' when its put up on forums. While there are phenomenal graphic designers out there, any teenager who's been paid by their uncle to write a website can call themselves a professional graphic designer. Personally, I'm not interested in seeing credentials; I want to see the graphic designer's work.

While I can appreciate the merits of someone new to design wishing to get feedback on forums, professional designers should just be submitting their work. There are two main reasons for this: first, you will never please everyone on the forum; and second, most people on forums mistake pretty art for good design. That is, professional designers should at least understand that concept-by-committee doesn't work.

The devs will let the community know if they want to form a 'design team' for arch when the time is appropriate. What I'd like to see is for them to indoctrinate one, perhaps two design 'devs' to handle the design needs of the distro. I would want these people to be good at branding a logo (not only make pretty pictures, but work that logo onto shirts, letterhead, publications, swag, etc.). Anyone can draw a logo, but branding is something that requires some genuine design and PR skills. Since I would want this to be done in a unified way, it wouldn't be good to have anymore than the bare minimum of people doing it. Lastly, I hope the devs will make an OPTIONAL design-branding package in the repos to logo-up their arch install. This would make arch unique from other distros: actually making it option to have everything in existence logoed up to high heaven. What I'm hoping for is a designer who is more interested in branding and advertisement as opposed to changing the OS itself.

foxbunny · 2007-10-28 09:22:03

@PDExperiment626

1. graphics tools in Arch, as in GUI tools... nope, I don't think that is necessary. There are some tools like pacman GUI frontends that I don't use at all. So, yeah, +1 on that.

2. No need for graphics LiveCD -1. That one was actually requested by many, many graphic artists. One of the things was an installable graphics LiveCD, which makes sense, especially with Arch Linux, since installing Arch Linux is no trivial task. Main reason for an Arch-based LiveCD is that it packs the latest and greatest software. The graphics tools in Linux world are still under heavy development, and new exciting features get added to new versions as a rule. So having the latest is almost a must.

3. No sharing concepts on forums -1. There is a HUGE gap between the conventional design *job*, and a community project withing the open-source communities. I believe that when it comes to community, everyone should put their own interests aside, and share and work with the community members.

4. Brand management team within Arch dev team +1. That is certainly a good thing for Arch. I wouldn't worry too much about it, if I were you. You do realize that there are people within this community who actually make a living by enforcing branded imagery? Besides, devs are super-serious this time, and I'm sure the branding will be extensive and consistent.

5. Anyone can draw a logo -1. Anyone can draw a logo?! Yes, that would really be nice. Take a look at some of the distro logos. I wouldn't say anyone can draw a logo...

BTW, no one is talking about changing Arch Linux here. You obviously didn't understand the discussion. We'd probably request a package or two from time to time, and that would be that most extreme change I had in mind. And probably even that would not happen, as we can always set up a separate repo. As for changes in the way Arch Linux works, there could always be a fork of some sort to test a different setup.

@TheBodziO

Please take the discussion here: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=39177

There are more interested people.

kanim · 2007-10-28 10:16:05

I've been watching this thread for about a week now and figured I'd drop in my two cents on some of the current discussion.
First, it's not exactly clear to me what exactly the purpose of making a 'group of tools' targeted at designers. Personally, I have a hard time seeing why a graphic designer would need a live CD. Given that graphics design requires non-trivial hardware (for most modern designs), I don't see graphics artists using anything but a dedicated graphics workstation. So, what is really the purpose of a liveCD?
Also, arch isn't Ubuntu. Talk of making designer 'tools' for this distro is something that I thought the devs wanted to avoid. Indeed, the devs have avoided any serious branding attempts up until very recently. Making a bunch of arch-specific programs, tools, whatever for design seems to be going down the path Ubuntu took; and that's not something arch has done in the past. Maybe I've misinterpreted what is being proposed. If that is the case, please clarify what the purpose of a 'design group' and 'design tool" associated with arch would be.
Personally, I've seen many professional designers produce poor design ideas; I don't put weight behind the term 'professional designer' when its put up on forums. While there are phenomenal graphic designers out there, any teenager who's been paid by their uncle to write a website can call themselves a professional graphic designer. Personally, I'm not interested in seeing credentials; I want to see the graphic designer's work.
While I can appreciate the merits of someone new to design wishing to get feedback on forums, professional designers should just be submitting their work. There are two main reasons for this: first, you will never please everyone on the forum; and second, most people on forums mistake pretty art for good design. That is, professional designers should at least understand that concept-by-committee doesn't work.
The devs will let the community know if they want to form a 'design team' for arch when the time is appropriate. What I'd like to see is for them to indoctrinate one, perhaps two design 'devs' to handle the design needs of the distro. I would want these people to be good at branding a logo (not only make pretty pictures, but work that logo onto shirts, letterhead, publications, swag, etc.). Anyone can draw a logo, but branding is something that requires some genuine design and PR skills. Since I would want this to be done in a unified way, it wouldn't be good to have anymore than the bare minimum of people doing it. Lastly, I hope the devs will make an OPTIONAL design-branding package in the repos to logo-up their arch install. This would make arch unique from other distros: actually making it option to have everything in existence logoed up to high heaven. What I'm hoping for is a designer who is more interested in branding and advertisement as opposed to changing the OS itself.

yes i totaly agree on that

That one was actually requested by many, many graphic artists. One of the things was an installable graphics LiveCD, which makes sense, especially with Arch Linux, since installing Arch Linux is no trivial task. Main reason for an Arch-based LiveCD is that it packs the latest and greatest software. The graphics tools in Linux world are still under heavy development, and new exciting features get added to new versions as a rule. So having the latest is almost a must.

why a designer shouldn´t install arch as any other user? why do they need a LiveCD

foxbunny · 2007-10-28 11:35:30

Consider this, kanim. You are a graphics designer, relying heavily on tools like Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, Acrobat, and Illustrator. You have set your Windows XP SP2 just the way you like it, and have clients call you all the time. You can't afford to NOT have a wokable workflow at any give time.

So, the best solution, obviously is to either have a system that can (a) install in 10~20 minutes and have all the tools you need out-of-the-box just to let you use them and see how they work, or, better yet, (b) a LiveCD.

A LiveCD has obviously one more advantage for newcomers to Linux world. It can show them what a decently set up workflow can do, and how it looks like, and it can also serve as a working distro, if they prefer to use it that way, without touching their precious tools on the hard drives. If it can install to hdd in under 20 minutes (okay, it could even be 30, doesn't matter that much) than it is a perfect solution for both newbies and experienced Linux artists.

On the long run, however, it should also include such things as a configured WebDAV server that will allow two or more PCs running the LiveCD to share files and also support versioning, have a configured font manager, color management in X, etc. Those are the features not found in many distros, and I doubt any development team would bother setting those up to be available out-of-the-box.

PDExperiment626 · 2007-10-28 12:14:09

foxbunny wrote:

2. No need for graphics LiveCD -1. That one was actually requested by many, many graphic artists. One of the things was an installable graphics LiveCD, which makes sense, especially with Arch Linux, since installing Arch Linux is no trivial task. Main reason for an Arch-based LiveCD is that it packs the latest and greatest software. The graphics tools in Linux world are still under heavy development, and new exciting features get added to new versions as a rule. So having the latest is almost a must.

I still say this doesn't make sense. You want to create an Arch liveCD distro based on the premise that there are graphic artists out there who are stingy enough to want the VERY latest and greatest software for linux who aren't actually willing to use professional graphic suites. This is tantamount to trying to break into a market that Arch wasn't really designed for. Knoppix was built with the intention of being put on CDs; arch is not. Knoppix has people working exclusively on how to make their distro the best liveCD out there; why would devs seek to compete against this when they already have their own niche in the distro arena? If you want to put a series of designer tools on a liveCD why not use a distro DESIGNED to work on liveCDs as a base?

While I agree that linux graphics products have come a long way in the last few years, they still have some glaring problems when it comes to creating professional designs. The most glaringly obvious deficiency is the lack of pantone support in linux graphics apps and printing support that still isn't on par with mac or windows platforms. So, my question is: are there really THAT many professional developers out there who NEED the very latest in gimp, inkscape, etc., who NEED it on a liveCD but don't actually NEED things like pantone support that are only available on macs or windows? I find this to be pretty unlikely.

foxbunny wrote:

3. No sharing concepts on forums -1. There is a HUGE gap between the conventional design *job*, and a community project withing the open-source communities. I believe that when it comes to community, everyone should put their own interests aside, and share and work with the community members.

Exactly, there is a huge gap between the conventional design job and the community project. The big distros have all hired professional design firms to do their logo and branding. The logos of fedora, redhat, ubuntu, suse were not made as community projects; even if the original concept came from a developer, those logos needed to be cleaned up by a proper designer. Not once have I seen a logo come out of a communal conception paradigm that had staying power once the project got beyond a certain size. Poorly-designed logos are sufficient for small projects/companies, but it's been shown time and again that a poorly designed logo will have to be changed once a project/company reaches a certain size (if they wish to continue growing). Fedex, Kinkos, fedora are just some examples of companies that had to change their logos to keep up their growth rates. The examples of companies that have had to 'evolve' their logo to maintain their growth are too numerous to list here.

As for putting interests aside; frankly, I don't see that happening here. Indeed most critiques here have seemed to inspire more conflict than better designs. Personally, I don't want to see post-after-post of justification of why one person thinks their design is the best. Really, I have seen almost no evolutions of designs due to discussions created on this thread. This has nothing to do with the arch forum people (I actually really like this community), it ALWAYS happens when a design concept is left up to a community. From what I can see, it just seems like most people think their idea is the best and only post ideas to get the praise they feel they deserve--not actual critiques.

foxbunny wrote:

4. Brand management team within Arch dev team +1. That is certainly a good thing for Arch. I wouldn't worry too much about it, if I were you. You do realize that there are people within this community who actually make a living by enforcing branded imagery? Besides, devs are super-serious this time, and I'm sure the branding will be extensive and consistent.

Well, I bring it up because the post seem to reflect the idea that people see a logo redesign as scarcely more than slapping a piece of clipart here and there on backgrounds, splash screens, whatever. This isn't a trivial thing to do on the level that the arch devs seem to be indicating. Design houses get paid big bucks to do this type of work and the arch devs are being put into situation where they need people's help that would normally cost quite a bit. Case-in-point, Ubuntu hired a design firm to do their logo and branding, not a cheap endeavor. Same thing for Fedora. If there are people who know how to do this level of branding in the Arch community that's great; I've just gotten the impression that some would place this type of work on par with designing something like a small website.

foxbunny wrote:

5. Anyone can draw a logo -1. Anyone can draw a logo?! Yes, that would really be nice. Take a look at some of the distro logos. I wouldn't say anyone can draw a logo...

I didn't say anyone could design a GOOD logo, which is exactly my point. Most people won't admit that they can't draw a logo. "Oh look at the ubuntu logo, I could so draw something like that." So, yes anyone can draw a simple picture and claim it is a logo; but few can actually draw a genuinely decent logo. The problem is, most people think they are one of those 'talented few' who can draw a decent logo.

I find this point of yours interesting. You say that you don't believe everyone can draw a logo; so why are you in favour of the logo-by-committee paradigm?

foxbunny wrote:

BTW, no one is talking about changing Arch Linux here. You obviously didn't understand the discussion. We'd probably request a package or two from time to time, and that would be that most extreme change I had in mind. And probably even that would not happen, as we can always set up a separate repo. As for changes in the way Arch Linux works, there could always be a fork of some sort to test a different setup.

Um... there have already been posts about a designer liveCD, a set of designer tools, new packages and separate repos with a logo yet to even be decided upon. The devs have given the community a wonderful opportunity to have input on what will become the FACE of THEIR distribution and already there are posts all over the thread talking about ideas that amount to taking away the focus of the distribution. Talking about forming design/branding teams, liveCDs, new repos and now possible forks with no obvious dev input.... well there's a saying... give people an inch and they'll take a mile.

I just hope the devs don't begin to regret giving the Arch community a very unique and awesome opportunity to design the logo of their distribution.

Sigi · 2007-10-28 12:26:11

PDExperiment626 wrote:

I still say this doesn't make sense. You want to create an Arch liveCD distro based on the premise that there are graphic artists out there who are stingy enough to want the VERY latest and greatest software for linux who aren't actually willing to use professional graphic suites. This is tantamount to trying to break into a market that Arch wasn't really designed for. Knoppix was built with the intention of being put on CDs; arch is not. Knoppix has people working exclusively on how to make their distro the best liveCD out there; why would devs seek to compete against this when they already have their own niche in the distro arena? If you want to put a series of designer tools on a liveCD why not use a distro DESIGNED to work on liveCDs as a base?

Nobody talks about the support of the Arch devs. Try out the larch scripts - its really easy to create a decent LiveUSB/CD with them. You wouldn't "break into into a market Arch wasn't really designed for", you'd just give graphics artists a alternative way of trying out and eventually install Arch. Don't forget that GNU/Linux is about choice and not about "market".

edit: I meant wouldn't...

Last edited by Sigi (2007-10-28 12:29:39)

iphitus · 2007-10-28 12:42:30

PDExperiment626 wrote:

I still say this doesn't make sense. You want to create an Arch liveCD distro based on the premise that there are graphic artists out there who are stingy enough to want the VERY latest and greatest software for linux who aren't actually willing to use professional graphic suites. This is tantamount to trying to break into a market that Arch wasn't really designed for. Knoppix was built with the intention of being put on CDs; arch is not. Knoppix has people working exclusively on how to make their distro the best liveCD out there; why would devs seek to compete against this when they already have their own niche in the distro arena? If you want to put a series of designer tools on a liveCD why not use a distro DESIGNED to work on liveCDs as a base?

Arch works great on liveCD's. There's not a huge amount that differs a 'liveCD' distro from a non such distro. You'd think there is, but there actually isnt much at all.

While I agree that linux graphics products have come a long way in the last few years, they still have some glaring problems when it comes to creating professional designs....

Doesn't mean that there's no interest from ameteurs, nor does it mean it's impossible to use Linux. Linux has issues, is far from it being incapable. Many of it's apps, as said earlier in this thread, have excellent PDF output... which makes printing easier.

Exactly, there is a huge gap between the conventional design job and the community project. The big distros have all hired professional design firms to do their logo and branding. The logos of fedora, redhat, ubuntu, suse were not made as community projects; even if the original concept came from a developer, those logos needed to be cleaned up by a proper designer. Not once have I seen a logo come out of a communal conception paradigm that had staying power once the project got beyond a certain size..<snip>....Personally, I don't want to see post-after-post of justification of why one person thinks their design is the best. Really, I have seen almost no evolutions of designs due to discussions created on this thread. This has nothing to do with the arch forum people (I actually really like this community), it ALWAYS happens when a design concept is left up to a community. From what I can see, it just seems like most people think their idea is the best and only post ideas to get the praise they feel they deserve--not actual critiques.

Organising a professional designer isn't an option. That's that. Arch doesn't have the funding available and I don't really think it's a great need currently. Suggest what you like on these points, but it's a purely idealogical ground -- there isn't much alternative.

Well, I bring it up because the post seem to reflect the idea that people see a logo redesign as scarcely more than slapping a piece of clipart here and there on backgrounds, splash screens, whatever. This isn't a trivial thing to do on the level that the arch devs seem to be indicating...<snip> .I've just gotten the impression that some would place this type of work on par with designing something like a small website.

Re-read the thread. People are taking it seriously, and certainly as more than a re-design. It's not like it's entirely undirected and without any professional opinon, three professionals have already identified themselves.

foxbunny wrote:
5. Anyone can draw a logo -1. Anyone can draw a logo?! Yes, that would really be nice. Take a look at some of the distro logos. I wouldn't say anyone can draw a logo...
I find this point of yours interesting. You say that you don't believe everyone can draw a logo; so why are you in favour of the logo-by-committee paradigm?

Being able to draw, is separate from being able to make suggestions or have an opinion. While I may see something I dislike in the typography of a logo, I lack the experience to fix it. I can however point out that it may not work well though.

Um... there have already been posts about a designer liveCD, a set of designer tools, new packages and separate repos with a logo yet to even be decided upon. The devs have given the community a wonderful opportunity to have input on what will become the FACE of THEIR distribution and already there are posts all over the thread talking about ideas that amount to taking away the focus of the distribution. Talking about forming design/branding teams, liveCDs, new repos and now possible forks with no obvious dev input.... well there's a saying... give people an inch and they'll take a mile.

First, foxbunny isn't a developer, so what derivative projects are entirely community projects until we state otherwise.

Second, we've had custom repos going on here for as long as Arch has existed, it's part of Arch.

Third, liveCD's and custom distributions of arch are *common*. FaunOS is Arch Based afaik, Archie, larch, ELive, and there's others that have come and gone. There is *nothing* wrong with starting a community based project, and further more, nothing we can do to stop it, Arch is entirely open source.

This has been happening for ages, it is nothing new. It's part of the awesomeness of Arch, it's so easy to mould into whatever you like.

James

edit: Apologise for the <snips> it was getting long... and is still pretty long. Keep the quotes tight guys.

Last edited by iphitus (2007-10-28 12:46:03)

foxbunny · 2007-10-28 13:08:17

Could someone please merge this last part of the discussion with the thread I opened in Linux discussion?

@PDExperiment626

Dude, you are obviously full of hate, and I don't think your points are very rational. You are saying:

1. We want to change Arch Linux: totally untrue and distorted a LOT.
2. Our logos are poorly designed because Aaron didn't pay us: we are all volunteers here, no matter what we do in 'real' life
3. forking Arch is not allowed: arch doesn't prevent us to, if we wanted to fork it, plus a small repo, and a liveCD is NOT a fork

Those explanations were for the community. You are just trolling, and I am no longer participating.

@iphitus

About organizing a pro designer. It's not a big deal. You have 4 that work for you. But organizing market research, focus groups, aggressively marketing Arch into the Enterprise and Server arena... those are the things you can't afford. And, frankly, the way Arch community works atm, I don't think you need those anyway.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-28 13:14:48)

cerise · 2007-10-28 14:17:42

foxbunny wrote:

@PDExperiment626
Dude, you are obviously full of hate, and I don't think your points are very rational. You are saying:
1. We want to change Arch Linux: totally untrue and distorted a LOT.
2. Our logos are poorly designed because Aaron didn't pay us: we are all volunteers here, no matter what we do in 'real' life
3. forking Arch is not allowed: arch doesn't prevent us to, if we wanted to fork it, plus a small repo, and a liveCD is NOT a fork
Those explanations were for the community. You are just trolling, and I am no longer participating.

@foxbunny -
I think the three points you are summarising as coming from pdexperiment626 aren't accurate. I don't see those comments in pde's posts. You sound very defensive, and I disagree with a personal attack (saying they are full of hate, irrational, and a troll) toward someone stating their thoughts. Disagreeing with someone is natural, but please keep comments related to what they say, not who or what you think they are.

What I believe you have missed is that pdexperiment626 is saying that:
* spending developer time on making spin-off versions of arch that only appeal to a limited number of people is not in the best interests of the distro itself,
* professional developers most likely would not be interested since they have their graphics workstation setup the way they want,
* professional logos are not usually done by a group effort, paid or otherwise,
* and finally, that diluting the concentration of developer (or community) time/commitment into a fork can convolute/lessen the original project itself.

While I may or may not agree with pdexperiment626's posts, I think that they should be read completely before replying. I have read them multiple times and I do not see many of the items that everyone seems to be defensive about.

(On a side note, pdexpreriment626's posts are quite long to read, especially multiple times.)

PDExperiment626 · 2007-10-28 14:31:56

Cerise has put forth a correct and nicely articulated version of what I said in my previous posts. I hope that people will now be able to reexamine my posts and read them correctly.

I will not belabor the point further by giving a blow-by-blow description of how people have misread my statements.

While I stand by everything I put forth in my original posts. Let me make some things clear.

1. I don't think arch needs a professional designer/design team to get a great logo and design.
2. I have no problem with people posting new ideas on a forum.
3. I do not care if someone is a professional or not. If they produce a great design; it's a great design regardless of how they've labeled themselves.
4. I believe non-professionals are totally capable of producing great designs.
5. I think Arch is a wonderful OS. It has a great community of intelligent people. It's flexibility is indeed a strength.

Not ONE of those points is in conflict with anything I said in my previous posts.

My goal was to give a different perspective on what makes a good design process and how communal efforts can hamper that process. I was hoping this would give people a bit more information to better gauge feedback coming from a forum.

Unfortunately, foxbunny has just exemplified many of the points I was making in my posts. I tried to put forth my ideas to give a different perspective on the current discussion and I am called a troll for it. Not exactly constructive feedback.

Last edited by PDExperiment626 (2007-10-28 14:34:11)

foxbunny · 2007-10-28 14:44:48

spending developer time on making spin-off versions of arch that only appeal to a limited number of people is not in the best interests of the distro itself,

Figment of imagination: not rational. What do you expect me to say? As a fact, it may or may not be true, but in this context, it doesn't exist.

professional developers most likely would not be interested since they have their graphics workstation setup the way they want,

No one was talking about developers. I specifically said 'graphics artists, DTP technicians, and photographers'. So, again, non-existent.

professional logos are not usually done by a group effort, paid or otherwise,

Missing the part that says "in corporate environments". Again, this is not a corporate environment, so doesn't apply. And basing the argument on something that doesn't apply or exist is irrational. Also, as iphitus pointed out, group effort doesn't necessarily mean that 10 artists are working on the same design, does it?

and finally, that diluting the concentration of developer (or community) time/commitment into a fork can convolute/lessen the original project itself.

That was not suggested by any of us, at least not in that form.

So, basically, either pde's not reading responses, or he is trolling, or he is irrational. I have written an annotated reply to pde's post, but I changed my mind. He has set his mind on something that is not there and goes on arguing, which is pointless.

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-28 14:46:09)

kanim · 2007-10-28 14:45:50

Consider this, kanim. You are a graphics designer, relying heavily on tools like Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, Acrobat, and Illustrator. You have set your Windows XP SP2 just the way you like it, and have clients call you all the time. You can't afford to NOT have a wokable workflow at any give time.
So, the best solution, obviously is to either have a system that can (a) install in 10~20 minutes and have all the tools you need out-of-the-box just to let you use them and see how they work, or, better yet, (b) a LiveCD.
A LiveCD has obviously one more advantage for newcomers to Linux world. It can show them what a decently set up workflow can do, and how it looks like, and it can also serve as a working distro, if they prefer to use it that way, without touching their precious tools on the hard drives. If it can install to hdd in under 20 minutes (okay, it could even be 30, doesn't matter that much) than it is a perfect solution for both newbies and experienced Linux artists.
On the long run, however, it should also include such things as a configured WebDAV server that will allow two or more PCs running the LiveCD to share files and also support versioning, have a configured font manager, color management in X, etc. Those are the features not found in many distros, and I doubt any development team would bother setting those up to be available out-of-the-box.

1. iam a graphic designer
2. its not that like you need 3 days like for gentoo installing arch it isn done within 1 or 2 hours
3. you had the time to configure windows the way you want u should also have the time for arch than.
4. workflow isn´t that great on a LiveCD sou you have to install it.
5. the LiveCd would need kde gnome xfce openbox.... the best on arch is that it is so customizable the way i want a livecd decides for you want on your pc and what not...

so i personaly don´t like the idea of a LiveCD

foxbunny · 2007-10-28 14:51:57

Kanim, you are already a Linux user. I was refering to the group that doesn't use Linux atm, but would like to try. Sorry, forgot to point that out.

As for number 4. it can be done, and in fact, if it is done right, it could be the quickest way to having a decent workflow. Point is, if you configure the LiveCD for a very specialized purpose, it enables you to have a working environment straight after popping in the CD. Of course, the merits of having a distro properly set up on the hard drive are countless, but the LiveCD in question can also be made installable, in which case, it would be even better than the standard install CD.

5. Yes, Arch is customizable, and that's why I chose to buld a LiveCD based on Arch.

Anyway, no one is saying you have to use it. I just think it could be a good thing. Of course, the community I suggested in the other thread (which I hope will outlive this slightly pointless LiveCD/branding discussion) will offer many other things, not just the LiveCD. But I think LiveCD *will* play an important role in attracting more people to join.

Maybe you are stuck on the term LiveCD. Call it an 'Arch for artists edition install/live CD'.

Even Ubuntu users can install packages from Studio repos. So the LiveCD I'm talking about will not prevent anyone from using regular Arch and add packages from the thing...

Last edited by foxbunny (2007-10-28 14:53:59)

cerise · 2007-10-28 15:13:52

foxbunny wrote:

So, basically, either pde's not reading responses, or he is trolling, or he is irrational. I have written an annotated reply to pde's post, but I changed my mind. He has set his mind on something that is not there and goes on arguing, which is pointless.

@foxbunny -
Ok, I'm not exactly sure the two of you are talking about the same thing. It's very difficult to read through your comments about the person versus the posts, but let me see if I can't help the understanding a little.

What it reads to me, is that pde's posts were stating some constructive criticisms regarding the time and effort involved in pursuing some of the live-cd or specialised-arch ideas that you and others were putting forth. Also, I get the sense that pde's posts are also reflecting the (chaotic and least-productive) nature of having a competition for something as 'vital' to a 'brand name' as the logo discussed by large groups of people.

Your comments regarding the existence or non-existence of specific elements is where I don't think you see what pde says. I believe pdexperiment626's posts are comments on ideas, not on what YOU, personally, were saying. (Perhaps even what some others said.)

Also, regarding professional logos, after being in this business for a while, I personally, can tell you that professional logos are never done by a group. A professional logo is chosen by the smallest number of decision makers as possible. That is my own experience, and I have perhaps used that experience to colour pdexperiment626's comments (when I attempted to summarise them.) There has not been, in my experience, any divide between a corporation or a small group choosing the logo -- if the logo/branding/identity is chosen by a large group of people, it has not been a professional choice. Saying that it doesn't apply here would be in opposition to everything I have learned and/or experienced working in the field. Your mileage may vary.

Group effort does not mean the artists submitting designs, but rather, getting a majority of the many people that use arch linux to agree on a design. (Which is what, I believe, pde was saying about the arguing involved in this type of process.)

pdexperiment's posts seem to be ideas and constructive thoughts about where some ideas and discussions seem to be leading. I do not see any of pde's points as non-existent, but I believe that the two of you are not talking or even referring to the same things. I don't see much in the way of irrationality or trolling. I see a complete difference in what each of you are saying to one another.

As far as anyone's mind being set, I would never attempt to make that claim, even about my own mind, which I know best! (Ok, now I've written far too long about this. (Is anyone still reading?!) Please agree to disagree and let's continue on with the logo-happiness!) go-go arch!

Last edited by cerise (2007-10-28 15:16:23)

Arch Linux

#526 2007-10-27 16:49:37

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#527 2007-10-27 18:12:27

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#528 2007-10-27 20:17:00

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#529 2007-10-27 20:41:28

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#530 2007-10-27 22:03:03

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#531 2007-10-27 22:32:11

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#532 2007-10-27 22:45:35

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#533 2007-10-28 00:26:48

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#534 2007-10-28 01:10:17

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#535 2007-10-28 01:20:44

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#536 2007-10-28 02:00:17

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#537 2007-10-28 04:05:36

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#538 2007-10-28 09:22:03

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#539 2007-10-28 10:16:05

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#540 2007-10-28 11:35:30

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#541 2007-10-28 12:14:09

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#542 2007-10-28 12:26:11

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#543 2007-10-28 12:42:30

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#544 2007-10-28 13:08:17

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#545 2007-10-28 14:17:42

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#546 2007-10-28 14:31:56

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#547 2007-10-28 14:44:48

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#548 2007-10-28 14:45:50

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#549 2007-10-28 14:51:57

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

#550 2007-10-28 15:13:52

Re: Arch Linux logo concept

Board footer