Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:05:51 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski <atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Please don't change Beastie to another crap logo suchasNetBSD!!! Message-ID: <894124619.20050210140551@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGEFHFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com> References: <1905317067.20050210103050@wanadoo.fr> <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNGEFHFAAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > On the cover of any FreeBSD CDROM purchased from Walnut Creek. > However, use of the devil image associated with UNIX predates this by > nearly 2 decades. A devil image used in a general way isn't a logo, just as various images of windows are not the same as the official Windows logos. > The logo image that uses Beastie first appeared on the FreeBSD 1.1 > cdrom and was used as a logo in the bottom of every single Walnut > Creek CDROM including the ones that came out after BSDI bought them, > except it didn't appear on the 2.0 CDROM case. That is the most > recognizable logo, and even today appears on the top of the FreeBSD > website, to the right of the name FreeBSD. Still, it's not very consistent. The Beastie image is a cartoon character, and cartoon characters are assumed to be changing, moving entities--they make poor logos, although a very stylized logo can be based on a cartoon character (such as the mouse ears used by Disney). > The logo has switched direction a few times. The original WC drawing > had him looking left, most WC pressings have him looking left in the > logo but a few have him looking right. That's way too inconsistent for a logo. > And this is relevant, how exactly? It illustrates the difference between a logo and an image or entity associated with a product or service that is not a logo (such as a cartoon character or mascot). > You mean like the ATT Death Star. Yes. Major corporations invest zillions of dollars in their logo designs and are extremely careful about making them as neutral as possible. They must remind no one of anything except the product or service being represented. (I actually don't see a Death Star in the AT&T logo, but apparently someone, somewhere once did, and the nickname stuck, like the NASA "worm," IIRC.) > This is YOUR interpretation of a logo. Judging by the logos I see out in the real world, it's a very widespread interpretation. Indeed, the larger and more successful a company tends to be, the simpler its logo often becomes. Complex logos that look like complete illustrations are the mark of small and amateurish enterprises. > And I have as a matter of fact seen the one you drew that you posted a > link to before you responded here so if that is your idea of how a > logo should be drawn I think I know what you mean. That is an example of the technical criteria that a logo should meet. The aesthetics are debatable, but the logo has the technical requirements met: simplicity, no more than two colors, no colors touching, no shading, screens, or blends, Pantone colors, no fine details or sharp corners, and good grayscale and B&W rendering. > Perhaps you are aware that fashions in logos come and go - word logos > are very common these days, they didn't used to be however. It's best to follow the fashion in logo design, unless one is already so large and successful that one can afford to buck the trend (such as General Electric, which has kept the same logo for many decades). > Frankly though the finer points of what typeface and colors are used > are utterly lost on most people. Consciously, yes, but they unconsciously are influenced by the typeface and colors, and in a logo, this is very, very important. > I personally find word logos to be very boring. Logos aren't designed to be interesting; they are designed to be remembered. > From a business sense they are not very smart because if the business > is ever sold, then the acquiring business jettisons all of the name > recognition and imprinting you are talking about when they change the > name. I guess that's why IBM, Microsoft, and GE don't use logotypes, eh? The Garamond typeface has long been associated with BSD, which is why I thought it might look good in a logo. > I wonder if perhaps the reason word logos are popular is due to the > egos of the company founders - probably as little boys they were the > ones that could pee their names in the snow. The company founders usually don't design the logos in large and successful companies. They hire experts to do that. > If you pitched the heart (Valentines day must be on your mind) and > made a real honest to God devils tail instead, it might have a shot in > the competition. I deliberately avoided that, because (1) anything that doesn't have an interpretation alternate to that of a devil's tail might offend the Bible thumpers, and they are customers, too; and (2) the alternate interpretation of a heart makes the brand seem a bit more human and lovable, and references the loyalty of the FreeBSD user community. > And who do we have to pay royalties to or buy that font from? Nobody. You don't need a license to use a font. The shape of a font is not protected; only the name of the font is protected (copyrighted and/or trademarked), and the font files (which count as software) are protected by copyright. The font files are not used in this design, since I deliberately converted the letter forms to outlines for that reason. You're far more likely to have licensing problems with a cartoon character than with a typeface. > And if you look again at the book cover you might note that the > computer behind Beastie somewhat resembles a PDP. I don't have the book in front of me, but I do seem to recall a certain PDPness to whatever was behind Beastie in the blue shadows. -- Anthony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?894124619.20050210140551>