On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 08:30:05AM -0700, Andy Ruhl wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:27:46 -0600, Richard Rauch <rkr@olib.org> wrote:
> > FWIW: I expected a better logo.  I think that if the flag and pole
> > are removed (for some reason they remind me of FreeBSD's style of
> > artwork and are just ugly to me), the logo would be substantively
> > improved.  (Nevermind the obvious phallic imagery that could offend
> > prudish and anti-male individuals.)
> > 
> > I don't care for the color choice, but I guess that at least it is
> > bland and unexpressive of anything, so that the political correctness
> > group will be happy with the color.
> > 
> > BTW, should there not now be a little (tm) floating up by the the
> > name "NetBSD"?
> 
> Ugh. I agree. I suppose this might get the thing onto more
> letterheads, but I was expecting something a little more exciting
> myself, as well.
> 
> It's not anything to be proud of, but then again, there's nothing
> really to fault either. Utter political correctness wins again.

Yes, political correctness wins, and anybody who cares what the logo looks
like[1] loses.

[1]: except, of course, the NetBSD foundation, who wanted to cover their ass
     with a PC logo, and couldn't possibly have picked one more bland (and
     therefore more PC), and the creator of the new logo, who gets to see
     his work become the official logo of an OS that deserves so much more.

I just love how there was absolutely zero user feedback involved in the logo
selection process. I doubt the majority of people who would have voted (if
it were put to a vote) would have voted for this one. I find it hard to
believe that the other 500-some-odd logos were worse. I've yet to talk to a
single person who LIKES this logo.

-Sean

-- 
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign                   Sean Davis
 X  Against HTML                       aka dive
/ \ Email!