Hm, I can't find the original message that you (Jan) were replying to.  I
assume that you quoted it in its entirety:

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@wasabisystems.com> wrote:

>> I'm going to get flamed by people, but I'd really like to see us get
>> rid of the flag raising logo.
>>
>> It is:
>>
>> 1) Cartoonishly drawn

Isn't that kind of traditional with the BSD daemon?  I don't see this as
an inherant problem.


>> 2) Too complicated to be a logo

I agree.

But, I'm not sure that ``logo'' is the best term for what it's doing.  I
think that it's not too complicated for the NetBSD homepage.  But, it *is*
a bit busy if you wanted something to put on a business card, say.


>> 3) Reminds lots of people of war instead of the spirit of

You can see it that way if you like.  I am instantly reminded of the flag
photo at Iwo Jima, but that's an abstract place in an abstract time for
me.  I see it as echoing a famous photograph showing a group of people
cooperating at a task.  I don't see (not even in my mind's eye) people
getting shot, bayonetted, etc.  I don't see the surrounding war.

I'd also remind you, if you are on a political correctness crusade, that
lots of people see the BSD daemon and think ``devil''.  If you don't want
to offend/turn-off people by an image that can be interpreted
unpleasantly, then the daemon has to go.  Are you ready to back that one?


 [...]
>> I'm sure I'll get flamed though.

I'm not sure why.  You've stated an opinion.  You might get people who
disagree with you (e.g., me) but I'm sure that you can handle that.  (^&


>> On the off chance that I'm not flamed horribly, could I suggest we
>> start a contest to develop a new logo for the project?

If someone has a better image to put up there (or anything suitable for a
logo), that would be great.  However, I hope that there's not a contest
where it's stated at the outset that the winner *will* replace the
existing image.  What we've got is pretty good, IMHO.

Anything to replace it on the web-page should, I believe, have comparable
depth and quality.  Here are some of the things that stand out to me when
I look at the image:

 * Symbolizes cooperation at a task that may be too big for just one
   person.

 * The computers represent NetBSD's portability.

 * The fact that they appear to be old and discarded reflects NetBSD
   support for such machines.

 * The stark black and white suggests simplicity and functionaity over
   frills.  No gaudy colors, and no hype.

 * Planting a flag amidst computers suggests NetBSD is claiming ground.
   Usually, when *I* think of ``planting a flag'', I think of taking
   unclaimed ground (so there is no implicit loser).  The ground here
   is a field of cast off computers that other systems wouldn't support.
   (Ties back into the field of discarded computers, but is a little
   different.)

 * It does have the word ``NetBSD'' in it.

 * Inasmuch as I am any judge, the imagery suggests the BSD tradition.
   (Cartoony daemons with forks.)


A replacement image needn't have all of those, but it should have
comparable depth, IMHO.


>There was a discussion recently on netbsd-advocacy regarding the logo.
>JFWIW, the results of some more script-fu under the Gimp on my part are
>under http://www.netmeister.org/misc/netbsd/logos/

I like the matrix.jpg a fair bit, though the fork should come out in front
of the NetBSD logo/name, I think.  I prefer the original, still.  But if
the original *had* to go...  My main reason for prefering the original is
that it simply says a lot more (see the above list of things; (^&).
matrix.jpg basically says, ``We're cool and have some spiffy colors.''

(Oh, and a better quote might be something like, ``Take the Redmond pill
and you'll wake up and none of this will ever have happened.  Take the
blue pill, and...'' (Well, maybe a closer quote to the movie's
line...(^&))


If such a contest actually runs, I might try to put together an entry.  I
have the kernel (ahem) of an idea for one.  Although the idea needs work
and I'm not sure how the execution will turn out.

*If* a contest is run, it should be given a suitably long term (6 to 12
months), IMHO.


Well, if I say more, I'll probably start to repeat myself.  (If I haven't
already.)


  ``I probably don't know what I'm talking about.'' --rauch@math.rice.edu