Slashdot Mirror
Design A Standard For the Linux Standards Base
The widely reknowned HeUnique points to this LinuxWorld article, writing: "LSB wants to ask the Linux community people -- well, the artists among them -- to create an LSB logo." Rather cool to see a contest one of the rules of which is "All submissions must be created using Linux and native Linux tools. Frankly, most of us don't have a clue about how to check for violations. Just do it. We trust you." You've got until March 1st to submit two copies of your award-worthy artwork. See that LinuxWorld site for the full schmear, though. The LSB has been quiet for a little while, hopefully this contest hints (like the article does) at some action in the near future.
There's always good old xfig, but if that's too primitive for ya, try sketch.
GIMP is nice for making web graphics, but to make a logo for a real company where it'll be viewed in a huge variety of ways (web vs. print) and sizes, you really need to be using a vector based program such as illustrator or freehand. IF only because #1 they produce resolution independant graphics, and #2, my biggest issue with the GIMP, they support CMYK color space and other niceties such as the Pantone color system.
You can make really nice logo's with just black, white (the paper color) and a Pantone color, and they're cheap to produce, since when you go to print, you're only doing 2 colors. Without letting people use such tools as Panton, LSB's going to have to make sure that the only time their logo appears is if it's in a 4 color (CMYK) spot, which costs much more money...
But the biggest thing by far is that of vector graphics. I've hated getting TIFF versions of logo's that some college student produced for a company once, only to go back to the company asking if they've got an EPS version, because the TIFF version is not the right size, and then having to explain that i'll basically have to recreate their logo for them in a vector based program because of that...
Right... Before the tools they needed were available on their platforms, Intel routinely used macs to create things like flythroughs in their original Pentium TV ads. Dell and Microsoft had no qualms about using Macs to create and submit ads, since QuarkXPress wasn't originally available for Windows, and even today, you still run the risk of getting charged hefty service charges from printers for submitting a file from a Windows based application.
It's all about the best tool for the job, and LSB is making sure that no one will use the best tools available. Do they want a nice logo? Or do they want a perfectly cheesy attempt at one?
Yes they can, simply because Linux is not being put forth as a graphic design platform. It's not like finding .asp's at apache.org. Or finding VC++ headers in the kernel. Linux right now, is geared at the server market, the developers market, the terminal market (i don't know if that's the right word... but POS systems, etc) and the power user market. If there's a serious effort to make a linux distro into a graphic design platform, it's evaded the radar quite successfully...
Give it up. If they want a logo, they should ask for a logo. Give specifications on what they'ed liek to receive in the end, which they did - an EPS and a TIFF. And then let the designers do it however they'ed like. They're already getting a great deal in that they're getting a free logo. Corporate branding is a very lucrative business, don't forget.
How about this: you are an obvious imbecile.
I didn't say a damned thing about the GIMP. I like the GIMP. I use the GIMP.
For making any sort of logo or image that is going to be printed in a wide arrangement of sizes, you **HAVE** to use a vector format or all you'll end up printing is a blurry smudge.
And I'd LOVE to see you try and print some professional level brochures and what not with the GIMP. No CMYK color-space you say? Oh, well, I guess I'll just have to use my BLOATED software on another platform that actually is geared towards designers.
Hmm.. streaming media company. What company would that be? Would you mind posting a link to some of your work perhaps?
Rami
0o0o0o0o
rJames.org - illustration
Dude. 600/1200dpi? Magazines publish at 2400+ DPI. At that resoultion, a page-size graphic consumes over 2 gig of memory. Without the big-memory patches, Linux won't even handle that much. And I don't even want to think of trying to do a poster-sized logo in GIMP. Use REAL tools, it will make your life easier...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Do crayons and a scanner count as native Linux tools?
I like to play children's songs in minor keys.
"We're all sons of bitches now." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
This would have to be an animated gif, of course.
However, given that only Linux tools are permitted, I shall go out on a limb and predict the winning entry will be "LSB" rendered in an obscure font, filtered through a few random kung fu gimp filters executed in a random order and impossible to recreate because the winner was too busy exploring an artistic theme to remember what he was doing.
Of course, the fabulously funded LSB could always solicit professional designs from professional designers but that would cut too deeply into their stock value. Besides, didnt RedHat already give a lucky few of their open source friends some stock!? I mean, how much longer are they going to have to pay to distribute this Linux crap? Wasnt Open Source supposed to be Free (of expenses and labor?)
--
--
Eat right, exercise regularly, die anyway.
I think he was trying to be funny. And if he wasn't, and actually *likes* Mandrake's logos, then somebody call a medic...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Well, i've never actually opened an EPS created in Illustrator in a text editor, but i'd guess that since it's plain text, there may be some headers or mention of Adobe and/or Illustrator and/or plugin's in use... So if someone just spends a day grepping all the submissions for those, they could stand to kick out a lot of those submissions, should they arrive....
They should use the slackware logo.
.deb, and so on, should be declared the "official" way to do things on Linux, as if any of these people have the authority to impose this. I suspect that they'll try to phase out many of the things that make Slackware a better distribution, like the use of a standard tar+gz package system, lack of a zillion init scripts, and installing software in the places where UNIX (and the source code's INSTALL instructions) would specify.
----Begin Quote----
From: "Patrick J. Volkerding"
To: current@plains.NoDak.edu
Subject: Re: LSB Comment?
Feel free to go ahead and act like an authority. My $0.02 on this is that it's yet another effort to cram a lame standard down our throats.
There wouldn't be so many competing standards in Linux anyway if newer distributions like Red Hat, Caldera, Debian, et al had had some respect for the adhoc standards that went before them. As it is, I think the proposed Linux Standard Base is a sham. I doubt any attention will be given to standards that have existed in UNIX for decades; it will just be a discussion over which of the new, made up standards like RPM,
In light of the fact that I already have more important ways to spend my time than getting in an extended flame-war, I've told them I do not intend to participate. I think the resulting standard will not be acceptable in terms of the Slackware philosophy of doing things in a traditional UNIX way regardless of whether I'm involved in the discussion. I think it's obvious that the "standard" will be virtually identical to Debian's structure. Since they have the most developers (anyone can sign up), they'll likely have far more votes than any other organization. I expect them to dominate the whole process.
So, for these reasons, count me totally opposed. I mean, if there'd been all these committees and pseudo-standards early in Linux development, I suspect the whole thing would have gone nowhere. I wouldn't have wanted to help. Linux is a great example of successful anarchy, and at least my end of it will stay that way.
BTW, feel free to quote me on this.
Take care,
Pat
----end quote----
A TIFF is just as easy to print as an EPS given the right programs... And they can take a TIFF and convert it to a bitmapped EPS on their end with zero effort (File->Save As). Given those, the only reason to ask for an EPS version is because they want a scalable, resolution independant version of their logo. And that's not asking for much... Who knows, maybe they'll get really big one day and want their logo plastered on the side of a bus. If all they have for logo's is a 1280x400 pixel version, they're basically out of luck...
Magazines publish at 133lpi, maby 150lpi for artsy magazines. Since the way laser printers, bubble/inkjet printers, and lithography work is very different, resolution conversion is non-trivial.
Photoshop => GIMP
Illustrator => ???
Steven
Software Wars
Fedex did not spend millions of dollars redesigning their logo in the 90s because they wanted it to be "prettier
I'm not a graphic designer, but I find it hard to believe that it took millions of dollars to create "FedEx" in purple and gray, with the left side of the E matching up with the right side of the d. Personally, I've seen the logo a hundred times but never even remembered what it looked like just now until I went to their web site (obviously http://www.fedex.com. This is one of the goals to creating a logo - to have people remember what it looks like (Nike did a great job). Basically if you are right about the money spent I believe it was a waste.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
"irreverent" - I don't see the point here, especially not for Mandrakesoft logos.
Of course you don't see Microsoft logos spread out and shoved in your face all over the place. The "hip" thing these days is Linux. Why ? Because most magazines simply provide pure spin, and since 95% of all non-technical users have no idea what Linux actually is, so the magazine authors can feed them loads of bright and shiny bullshit under the shield of "Linux, Open-Source, and cute little penguins". That's why all my relatives and friends give me a blank stare and ask "Why are you running Linux on that other PC ? I don't like it, it's like DOS." Well that's what they've been spoonfed by TV and print. Sad but true, for the good sources of Linux news are all over the web and we know them well. These days, everyone and their mother is advertising an "upcoming Linux version" of their GeeWhizBang PowerApp, only to discover that there is no Visual Basic for Linux. Idiots all over the place, I tell you!
Needless to say, if Microsoft ever puts out their own rehash of Linux, it's going to be hard to turn a corner without seeing a "Winux" magazine out there.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Freedom is all well and good, but it sure doesn't pay the bills. Being able to upgrade your own software is all well and good, but if that were so easy, where is the Illustrator Clone for Unix? My point isn't that we should give up on free software. However, if you're trying to accomplish some goal, any goal, you need to accomplish it in the best way that you can. If that can't be done using free software, then it must be done some other way. Doing otherwise doesn't mark you as an intelligent being, rather, it marks you as a closed-minded fool.
(It must be noted that "the best way that you can" doesn't always involve commercial software. If you can't afford to purchase Illustrator, then you can't very well use it as one of your options... in some cases free software is the ONLY way for an individual/group to accomlish his/her/their goals.)
Irreverent (in the context of the quote) means kinda offbeat, unusual, silly even. Mandrake's logos are definately silly. Maybe I shoulda said cutesy?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
There is Gimp, and photoshop-like tools such as Killustrator and Sketch which are good tools (not as good as Illustrator, that's true). Anyway, the article doesn't say if running Illustrator inside Linux+Plex86+Windows or running Linux+Wine+Illustrator is forbiden ;)
Ironically, old Cray computers were developed using a lot of Macs.
This kind of circular time travel must stop at once, or I will report it to the timecops!
Seriously, how can you tell on which machine a design was made? There was a time when saying something was "computer designed" gave it an aura of technological sophistication, but that was long before most /.ers were born.
Of course, sometimes it's easy. To tell if a website was designed using microsoft software, look for the telltale '?' symbols that appear where quotation marks should be.
And you also could use 3D tools to make something : POV, Blender, Houdini (never seen it, but I heard they made a linux version).
This could be a nice test for all the gfx soft out there in linux land (or is that a peninsula?).
Nobody believes the official spokesman, but everybody trusts an unidentified source. -- Ron Nesen
As a previous poster mentioned, the availability of good vector illustration products for Linux is either questionable or nonexistant.
:D), surfing, chatting, etc. Ih have used the Gimp for small graphics tweaking, but would enjoy the challenge :D
:D
I assume it is possible to export to an EPS directly from GIMP, but this is hardly any more than a raster inclusion into a "scalable" PS file. I would think (correct me if i'm wrong) that it is no more resizeable than a high-res TIFF.
I hope to enter something myself, but I ususally do my design work in Windows/Macintosh and use my Linux machine for hacking unix (or learning/trying to do so, anyways
So, anyone know of some good vector illustration programs for linux ala Freehand or Illustrator?
BTW, I guess designing the logo on the Mac and then "reproducing" it from scratch on the Linux machine is out of the question?
Alex Diaz
Although the comparison in this IRC quote isn't exactly along the lines of what's going on here with this nonsensical requirement, I think it sums up the point well enough:
(Quotes from: http://www.2600.org.au/logs/quotes.txt)
Look through their mail archives, and you will find the leaders of the LSB are all focused on making it easier for COMMERCIAL software companies to write Linux software.
Bah. The *ORIGINAL* selling out happened long before.
Just like the 1980's "Great Unix Unification" effort, when UNIX was going to have 'one interface' and be able to act as 'one market', the common binary on X86 effort was to obtain Unity. With this Unity, developers could be approached and told "write once, to this standard. Run all of these places."
The in-fighting and "use our implementation" ended up with "linux ELF" as the "standard". Ok fine.
The LSB group will NEVER obtain a workable standard because it is not SEEN to be in the interest of the bigger players in the linux market to allow the smaller players a "software stamp of approval". The "runs on redhat" stamp makes the use of RedHat a "supported option" instead of unsuported in the case of the other 180+ linux distros. And to choose "supported" or "unsupported" is an easy choice.
The LSB will only obtain the reluctant approval of RedHat and their bretheren when some outside force makes them feel their existance is threatened. At the moment, nothing like this exists. And the feeling that "Open source will take over - hence Linux will take over" makes a waiting game a win for RedHat and the other big players.
The LSB (or whatever standard replaces it) should be a standard anyone can Bake-Off their binary application against. And, any of the linux distros of the week should be able to run said application that was Baked-off VS the LSB.
If the "Linux community" (as opposed to the GNU/Linux community) wanted to show they had some balls, they'd:
1) Pubically throw up their hands and say "for 2+ years of effort, we have nothing to show, therefore this process is a failure."
2) Admit that "The goal however is worthwhile"
3) Point to the Linux emulation/compatibility modes of SCO/BSD/Sun and state "These are your bake off targets" under the idea that "If your Linux binaries can run on these machines, they should run anyplace else." Becasue for all the talk about how 'quickly' the 'open source world' can move, movement on the LSB has not happened. Code exists to provide a 'bake off' standard.
At a minimum, a "standard" would allow for more companies to have one less excuse to *NOT* produce programs that run on the "non Microsoft, non Macintosh" platforms. At a maximum, RedHat and others would see such a declaration as a 'threat' and actually MOVE to publish a "sanctioned standard". A standard the SCO/BSD/Sun would be able to get behind. A standard that can GROW the whole market.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Gimp is not suitable for designing icons and logos. It is not even meant to be.
I do graphics for a streaming media company
uhhhhhhm........No.. I won't... no comment.
And so you have this opinion about Illustrator. Well...
When opensource programmers write a vector illustration program that does what Illustrator does, and does it markedly faster and better then you can maybe call Illustrator bloatware. Til then you're just another OSS sturmtrooper beating your chest with the Tux salute chanting commercial software bad, OSS good. Meanwhile the rest of the world will be getting their design work done with tools that work, even if they cost money. And will probably consider that money well spent if they know anything about the free alternatives.
Lone Smurf is dead on:
The Linux Standards Base people have done something so thoroughly Bush League here, it boggles. IT BOGGLES! 99.999% of the young designers in the world, talented or otherwise, who would have an incentive to donate their work on a graphic identity for LSB so they could put it in their book, just got the door slammed in their face. And who's left now? People who don't or probably can't make graphic design their trade. Sure they'll contribute! But so what? They'll contribute something a first year design student would be embarassed to turn in as a weekly project. I would be gasping in astonishment but really on second thought it is so like OSS zealots to do something stupid and totalitarian like this. I neverlike to make broad sweeping statements, but All graphic marks, logos, icons &etc. associated with Linux suck ASS, and the reason, I'm afraid to say, is that Linux people generally don't know enough to know how far out of their element they are in matters graphical or artisitic and fail to recognize that they need someone different to help.
So what's next in the Long March to Purity of Essence ?
Apache webservers that will stop serving pages created by Dreamweaver or other non-OSS programs?
Hey LSB! why not just put a big stamp on everything you do that goes out in the world to be seen that says "We're unprofessional, that's right! We don't care what is best. We're simply about inbred purity.
We are not an official industry-standards body with standing to be reckoned with, we're just an informal bunch of busybodies who send out nuisance flyers occasionally when we aren't trying to kill each other. Dismiss us! ".
Hey Nick Petreley! Way to tell the commercial software world how welcome they are in the Linux market! Way to go buddy!
Johnny Quest has two Daddies.
I believe that's what i was trying to say. That the only reason to ask for an EPS version of the logo is for the resolution independant version, because if they just want a pixel based version, they can turn a TIFF into any other format they'ed like... Asking for an EPS makes it sound like they definetly don't want a bitmapped only logo.
I guess i wasn't clear in that ramble... Sorry, but it's sunday early afternoon and i'm not functioning yet
This is great fun watching slashdot folks talk about graphics. About as entertaining as listening to a bunch of graphic designers debate cobol versus Java, and just as accurate (see, the null pointer variable is creating an overflow into your read-only memory, dude!).
:)
First: Its absolutely idiotic to demand the logo be created in Linux. I mean, I know there are a lot of k3w1 linux kids out there who just love to get down with the gimp, but lets face reality here: if your goal is to have a good, professional logo that reflects well on the companies and community, dont set artificial limitations on the toolset. If you want some half-assed gimp graphic ("Look, your logo's on fire!") then by all means eliminate from consideration anyone who knows what they are doing.
Second: Please, dear god, everyone stop talking about specs.
Having Petreley say "Four colors or less often works quite well" is as annoying to a designer as saying "Try to keep the buffer overflows to a minimum" would be to a programmer. If anyone is planning on using Hexachrome for their logo design (or more than 4 spots), I'd love to know about it so I can be sure to never, ever work on a project with you ("what do you mean my business card will cost $10,000 to print?")
For those of you who can't figure out the issue between eps and TIFF, don't sweat it but please stop suggesting that you can just resample a TIFF to make it fit at any size. You can't. Yes, you can put a TIFF in an eps (hell, you could put the entire encyclopedia brittanica in an eps -- its just a wrapper format, like quicktime), no it won't make it scale any better. We'll just assume that when they ask for an eps that they are really asking for some vector graphic file in an eps format.
For future Consideration:
The kinds of things that might actually get you a good logo are never mentioned, presumably because they don't know the questions to ask (consider someone telling you to write a program for them, telling how many lines the source should be, what compiler to use, and never telling you what its for!).
What is wrong/disliked about the current logo? It does look very MS-office-ish (similar to the intelocking puzzle pieces) but is that the only thing they didn't like? Do they want something that conveys cooperation, cutting edge technology, stability, or what? These are all very different concepts, with different ways of representing them. If you focus on making an identity that highlights cooperation, you're making a trade-off against a feeling of speed and cuttin-edge tech. So which do they prefer? Damned if I know, they just want it at 640x480.
We seem to go through these same messages every time an article on GUI, logos, etc comes up here -- its fine if programmers don't want to know about how that stuff works, but its more than just a "pretty picture". Fedex did not spend millions of dollars redesigning their logo in the 90s because they wanted it to be "prettier". Having a window manager with "more colors" does not enhace the GUI.
Focus on what you are actually trying to do, and what you want to communicate -- not what color it should be (here's a design hint: if it matters what color your logo is, your logo IS BROKEN)
In a typical identity project, this would be an iterative process -- you'd bring one design for "cooperaton", one for "high-tech", etc -- and discuss with the client which they prefer, why, and then go back and incorporate the feedback. This is a one-shot deal, equivelent to programming an application without ever talking to the user, without having a beta test, and just dropping off an executable, never to be seen again. Sounds like a project I'm sure most programmers would LOVE to work on, right?
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Oh, god forbid that some Linux distros actually become COMPATIBLE and CONSISTANT. We UNIX grognards could never stand *anything* that was CONSISTANT. God help us, what are we going to do? People actually want to make MONEY of a good OS. How can we stop these capitalist bastards?
Good grief, quit complaining. If Linux get unified that would be a *good* thing, both for companies, and users. Not many people give a flying f*ck about tailoring their distro to their exact wants. Most people just want to use something that works well, without fussing with it. For these people, and LSB standard is a good thing. And for those people who couldn't stand a standard, well, Linux is free for a reason. The Debians and Slackwares of the world will always be around to annoy monolithic, all consuming companies like RedHat. Ideally, the LSB would write a strong standard, distros (but not all of them!) would follow it, and the free nature of Linux could be harnessed to keep the standard from becoming crappy.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Or like using BSD to run Hotmail?
They're switching over to Win2000. First time my account was 'temporarily unaccessible' in months.
I sort of like le GIMP and have done a few little things with it, but if you have to do something high-end quickly. Linux has been a great boon because of its strengths, but anyone who thinks that le GIMP is world-class is not working in the real world of graphic design. Someone else here said it. Can someone point to any graphically advanced site that's been constructed with the GIMP? Most of them have been constructed with Adobe or Macromedia. Well maybe Corel... Hey, they have a Linux version of Draw! Maybe that should be argued about here in opposition to le GIMP. Would a logo in CorelDRAW be okay? Linux really should be a superb graphics platform, but there are always so many device problems connecting with digitizers, plotters, and high-end printers that not many workstations every run much. That's true of SUN's and SGI's where you have to be very careful what you connect. I also think that the open source community will continue to improve le GIMP. It is still a pretty young product. I use vi because it's blitz-fast and powerful. Perl, awk, are my preferred webpage creation tools for volume work. I use Samba and Domino Server for Linux (merci Lotus/IBM). There are great products for Linux that have given it a momentum that goes well beyond LUGdom. Adobe has tried its hand with a version of Framemaker for Linux. It ran well, but was limited to 1 year and will probably cost WAY too much if released. I expect that they will eventually decide to do a Linux version of Photoshop or Illustrator. That would be great. For now, I think whoever is asking for a logo should try to get a really effective logo. At this point, I think Tux is great because it has been around long enough to be recognizable, and people are through marveling at how "home-grown" it looks. In the meantime, Linux has really made enormous headway and established itself as the smart solution for so many serving situations that its future seems very secure. I used to hate Tux, but now Tux has a very different and friendly quality that few operating systems have ever embodied. It has got to infuriate Microsoft that a phenomenon like Linux with such an non-slick and quaint logo could be taking noticeable market share from its low-end server target market. Dropping Tux might actually contribute to succumbing to the same sort of divisiveness that has rendered commercial UNIX more vulnerable to NT, and the real issues in Linux are elsewhere, I suspect. Like what will happen to Netscape after Netscape 6... There's a really troubling open-source development...
a guy on a windows machine won the contest having drawn the logo using Adobe (TM) illustrator (TM TM TM REG TM) etc first post!
shooting is not too good for my enemies
Linuxworld invites you to design the LSB logo. "The winner will be announced on LinuxWorld.com and will become eligible for an award given at the August LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in San Francisco. Best of all, this logo will appear on every Linux product box that conforms to the LSB standard." Not too much extra info there though :-(
Follow me
"All submissions must be created using Linux and native Linux tools." - That's the point where I stopped reading. It's just too silly for me.
It's not monopoly. It's a fair question. The reason is also stated why they want the logo to be designed using Linux tools. They can't get away with the logo designed under windows. It's like microsoft using Apache/PHP/MySQL on their servers.
All submissions must be created using Linux and native Linux tools
Just another example of how the Linux industries discriminates and unfairly competes against those who choose not to use its tools.
sub Save your precious mod points, I am joking subHopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Whoaaa, that's the dumbest thing I've heared for a long time. That's like Ford hiring a contract product designer to work on their new car and requiring that the product designer drive a Ford.
Now, if this were, say, the Gimp, looking for a new logo then there'd be _some_ sense in it. It would be like Ford requiring that their travelling sales staff drive Ford cars.
You know, I'd bet that 90% of all Microsoft Marketing output is done on Macs, since that's what most advertising creative departments use. And I bet Microsoft really doesn't care about that because it's looking for an end product that's of high quality, not high ideology.
-----
The LSB is something that is very badly needed in the Linux community, but I have to ask: how long has the LSB been around, and to date has anything useful come from it (e.g. a distribution that actually follows the standard)?
-Karl
Atlas holding up a file chooser window (showing some of the root system and maybe a breakout of /usr)?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Yes, Sketch is an excellent tool, genuinely the Gimp of vector manipulation tools in my opinion. I spent ages trying to do real work with xfig and dia (and some others that were so bad I don't even remember their names) before I discovered Sketch. I don't know why it isn't much more well known than it is (perhaps because the main distributions don't include it along with the Gimp in default installs?). The only minus point was that I had to find half a dozen weird and wonderful libraries, then recompile Python in order to get it work (twice, because I messed up the Python configuration the first time).
The rules indicate that the logo will be used on product boxes, and at a variety of sizes. A bitmapped image will neither scale well nor necessarily be of an adequate resolution to go to press.
:)
I'm probably showing my ignorance, but is there a Gimp of the Illustrators/Freehands out there? And if not, why not?
This is not a troll.
And why not? I am a graphic designer by trade and hobby, and I would love to submit something into this contest, but I can't because the tools and the operating system that I love and use (MacOS and adobe products) are not "supported".
The LSB is shooting itself in the foot with this one. I think that some of the most talented people out there are in a similar situation as myself and the LSB is going to end up with a subpar selection of logos to choose a winner from because of it.
Linux may be a great server, a wonderful programming environment and an OK desktop, but the one thing that it is not is a graphics workstation.
And until they have a decent, full featured vector illustration program you won't see me or much of my fellow trades(wo)men working on linux.
Rami
--
rJames.org - illustration
--
This sort of thing dose happen and makes perfictly good managment sence. An employee using a compeating product is both an endorcment of the product and an emberrisment to the employer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except, not really. Nobody even knows what the people behind the scenes use. A lot of people at the MS campus use *NIX. MS really doesn't care as long as they get a good product.
This is much worse when you have Linux advocates making logos using Windows
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Who cares? Isn't Linux about using the best product for the job? I don't know when Linux became a religion, but last thing I heard, people used it because it was better/freer/cheaper, not because it was anything not Windows.
Linux has very good graphics software and unless people are willing to spring for $2,000 profesional rendering pacages you are not likely to get much better results on other platforms.
>>>>>>>>
Except not really. For anything 3D, Linux is out until Maya gets ported. (Yea right, Blender, don't make me laugh.) Then there is the GIMP==Photoshop arguement. Ha ha, funny. Also, anybody who is in the graphics arts business already has Photoshop, so its not a new investment. Of course, the logo is going to end up being some amaturish spiral, so its not like what tool is used matters anyway.
PS> Yes, that's the whole problem with Linux. Crappy logos. For example...
A) The X logo. Black and what? How '80's of them. Oh wait...
B) The Redhat logo. Two tone? No style whatsoever.
C) The Debian logo. A spiral? How damn creative.
D) The Mandrake logos: Good grief, if I see any more purple cartoon penguins, I'll scream.
E) The freaking penguin: I'm sorry, but compared to the BSD Daemon, Sting (an unofficail BeOS mascot), or even the flying Windows, Tux just look uncool. Needs to lose some weight too.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
No offense, but what do any of the tools you mention have to do with creating non-amateurish logos for companies/organizations? It doesn't seem like any such tools for Linux exist right now.
Cheers,
No kidding, I can't believe that got an "Insightful." Ever seen a Mandrake box in a store? It reeks of amateurism. The only things I've seen in stores that look like they might've been produced by professionals (not that they're great, but passable) are the boxes for Corel's and Red Hat's distributions. Anyone know what software they used? I'd bet money that Corel didn't use Linux tools; as far as Red Hat goes, I have no idea.
Cheers,
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/images/util6.gif and
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/images/util7.gif (both found on their website).
All other redesigns of TuX have been insipid while Mandrakesoft's redesign of the Linux penguin is funny, expressive and provides positive image of Linux.
It's the inclusion of the line "Frankly, most of us don't have a clue about how to check for violations. Just do it. We trust you." that has me wondering - it's not really needed and the whole thing would be much more effective without it so why put it there? From their point of view it would be bad press if they had to admit that Linux wasn't up to it (and arguably it can't beat the MacOS tools out there for high end stuff).There was a similar thing going on with Linux Journal and why they didn't use Linux tools to do the layout of the magazine. Doesn't mean Linux can't do the logo - I was considering using Blender which I think is capable of some good stuff (note the link is on "stuff", not "good" =)).
--
Jon - TheSpork
If you like them, more power to ya. I think they look cheesy. I prefer "cool" logos over "funny and irreverent" (Linus quote from boot magazine) logos, but that's just me... and four fifths of the adult population...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Everyone and their evil twin (even myself) is commenting on the silliness of the "linux or native linux tools" thing, but another dimenion of it occurred to me:
What if I want to draw my logo, then scan it in and manipulate it on the 'puter? That requires, um, Linux paper, Linux pen[cil], Linux scanner, Linux cable...
You can bet your trousers the graphics for games on the Palm platform are not all made on Palm...
-J
Karma: T-rexcellent.
about the only art a linux user will make is using ASCII characters like back in the BBS days =P
there's a half-decent pixel app but no vector app for Linux
Try sketch. It's no Freehand(tm), but it's good enough for a lot of things. And never listen to the zealots.
Now go work on your troll-fu. You aren't nearly annoying enough yet to warrant a real flame.
0 1 - just my two bits
>Whoaaa, that's the dumbest thing I've heared for a long time. That's like Ford hiring a contract product designer to work on their new car and requiring that the product designer drive a Ford.
This sort of thing dose happen and makes perfictly good managment sence.
An employee using a compeating product is both an endorcment of the product and an emberrisment to the employer.
A fast food ad once ran showing an employee of one fast food place eating at a compleating fast food outlet.
This is much worse when you have Linux advocates making logos using Windows...
Linux has very good graphics software and unless people are willing to spring for $2,000 profesional rendering pacages you are not likely to get much better results on other platforms.
But people won't normally consider using Linux for graphic arts so this limitation is a very good idea.
I don't actually exist.
Peck of Penguin Picasso's The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
I don't like to post "me too"s, but I think this guy is totally on the mark. People have such ... poorly thought-out ideas about GUIs and graphics --
think -- if some people spend their life learning about laying out type or tinkering with graphics, then they ought to be quite a bit in the field to explore or recognize. Running around like a chicken with its head cut off is the right way to make linux (or anything) fail.
You're not alone in this view -- which is a major reason (no I'm not eggagerating) of why Linux won't succeed in the consumer market. It looks unprofessional, it looks like a hobby, a toy, and totally unreliable. The logos are amateur scribblings of penguins that are badly rendered and put through cheap photoshop and gimp filters. For all the hundreds of window managers and desktops, not one of them looks professional and coherent. They all look like gee-whiz 3-d graduate student projects, not like finished products.
I strongly agree.
there is no thing
what else could you want?
it was designed by Mandrakesoft's designers... They definately do the best graphisms related to Linux. See inside the latest Mandrake! A bit simple but I love those graphisms and they associate Linux with highly-positive image which is good for Linux...