This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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

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 =)))

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]