Re: New GCC logotype development. (Was:Re: New GCC logotype version1.6 (Sorry, I forgot to attach the image).)

[Vladius <boxforsr at inbox dot ru>]

Andrew Pinski wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Vladius wrote:
>
> > Matt Austern wrote:
> >
> > > No.  I would like you to explain in words, not in pictures: what you 
> > > think the goal of a logo is, why you think the current logo does not 
> > > meet those goals, and why you think that a different logo will meet 
> > > those goals better.
> >
> >
> >    It is not professionally made. It looks like a vector package 
> > test, but not as a final result. I don't say it is very bad, but it 
> > is not good, I'm quite sure.
> >    New logo meets those, I think.
>
>
> That is not what Matt is asking for.  That has nothing to do with why to
> change the logo,

   I think it is quite clear to understand. I present a better 
solution. Something that is better than the current logo is supposed to 
answear "Why to change the logo". "Because it is better" - is the answear.

> this is just like why University of Cincinnati changed
> their logo, to waste money.

   Oh, that Cincinnati University. Again they are wasting our money =). 
Never heard about them =)))