Christian:  Sorry, I am not replying directly to you this time.
I couldn't be bothered to fish it out of the web browser this
time.

No one said that the Political Correctness aspect was the main
aspect.  But it is sad that it was any aspect.  As I recall, the
logo contest rules explicitly rejected any daemon image.  Don't
tell me that that wasn't for PC reasons.

I agree that a simple logo is important.  No one has disputed
that, either.

Your comment about tattoos on chicks is confusing.  I guess that
we agree that removing the pennant would improve the logo.  Glad
to know that we agree on something about it.  (^&  I wasn't plan-
ning on tattooing any chicks.  (I do recall something about someone
editing some images of girls to add NetBSD logos to various body
parts...but even adding that memory does not help clarify why
you mention it in this context.)

I don't need to trust you that ~no one knows about NetBSD.  I
already know that.  As does, I venture to guess, every other NetBSD
user.  The point is that if someone doesn't know NetBSD, there
should be something to draw the eye in, or at least not cause the
mind to glaze over.  If the goal is to increase the number of users,
the logo should catch one's eye.  Isn't that the whole reason for
a logo at all?  I do not think that this logo can do that.  Simplicity
alone will not make or break this characteristic.

The IBM logo (last I saw it) is visually interesting.  It's
not exciting, but it's interesting.  It's not ugly.

Simplicity is not directly associated with either extreme of
aesthetics.  Do not confuse the two issues.


Finally: No, I did not have "very high" or even "high" expectations.
Given how the decision was made to adopt the logo before anyone
had ever seen it (or even conceived it), as far as I know, and the
motivation offered to artists was just $100 (which, at least in
countries economically close to where NetBSD developers live, is
pretty low if you want a decent result), I expected very little.

I did expect better, though.

Of course, it should be able to go without saying that TNF can
do what they like.  (But since you felt the need to say it, I'll
clarify that I do not dispute this fact.  (^&)

-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/