What Really Happened To Ubuntu's Edgy Artwork?

angrykeyboarder writes, "Many Ubuntu users expressed surprise, dismay, and disappointment when Mark Shuttleworth (sabdfl) nixed the popular community-developed artwork during the beta phase of Ubuntu 6.10 ('The Edgy Eft'). Some Ubuntu community members were downright shocked, and many were ultimately dissatisfied with the final product. What exactly happened? Short answer: the Art Team was less disturbed than some other community members were. Linux.com has the scoop." Slashdot and Linux.com are both part of OSTG.

Comments

Re:Ending life good, creating life bad.

[arthurpaliden]

The reason is quite simple. It takes more money to raise a child than to bury a person.

Ever wonder why the icons look nice?

[Chief Typist]

The icons were professionally designed:

http://iconfactory.com/design/detail/ubuntu

By one guy. Working directly with Mark.

My suggestion for the art team would be to establish someone as an art director. Someone that Mark trusts to implement his vision. And then have that art director give specific tasks to the designers that report to him.

It sounds like they're heading in that direction by giving Frank Stroep the title of "Artist in Chief". His task now is to tell people what he wants. And if you think it's easy being a hard ass when it comes to design & the people who do it, let me assure you IT IS NOT.

If this doesn't happen, they'll end up taking the "design by committee" approach. The result of this kind of process is something that no one loves -- a lowest common denominator. Sort of like when software is designed by a committee :-)

For what it's worth, I'm a principal in the company that did the Ubuntu work -- so I speak from experience about this stuff :-)

-ch

Re:Sex Bad Violence Good

[LordLucless]

Oooh, so you're not talking about actual sex or violence, you're talking about simulated sex and violence. Because it's bloody obvious that most societies disapprove ov violence more than sex - even in the US, I think you're birth rate is still higher than your murder-rate. I'd say the reason people are more okay with violence on the screen than sex is that they consider it unlikely that little Johnnie is going to go out and blow up a city block with a bazooka from a commandeered humvee no matter how many action flicks he sees. If he watches a lot of skin flicks though, it's probably going to give him ideas next time he's alone with little Sally.

Violence is obviously wrong, and you can usually rely on that as enough of a disincentive to discourage it. Even if you can't, the availability of bazookas also limits it. Sex, on the other hand isn't obviously wrong like violence, but it can lead to unwanted and unconsidered consequences - pregnancy, disease, etc, as well as increasing the complexity and intensity of a relationship. It has to be discouraged because it's so available - whereas violence of the action-movie sort remains remote; the viewer is rarely going to be in a situation where they could emulate it.