Re: New logo gone vectorised. (SVG format)

[Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>]

Vladius <boxforsr@inbox.ru> writes:

>     I've made a vector variant of the new logo. Hope You'll like
> it. It has not been finished to the end yet but should represent the
> idea clearly. Post Your comments, please. I've attached it to the
> message because SVG format is not heavyweight and I think that it
> shouldn't annoy anybody.

I do think that you need to pay attention to the people who are asking
you to clearly state the goals of the logo, and to explain why your
logo fits those goals better.  The goals have to be stated in terms
which are not related to the artwork, but to the gcc organization.  If
you have trouble doing this, then recruit somebody else to the effort
to do it for you.

If you present a better drawing of the current logo, then people might
be happy to adopt it.  But since you are presenting a different logo,
you need to explain why it is better.  You need to explain this not in
terms of being a better picture, but in terms of better representing
the gcc project.

There is no reason for you to continue submitting pictures absent this
rationale.  If your goal is to get a new logo adopted, then I strongly
urge you to take a big step back and start by convincing people that a
new logo is needed, and to describe what the new logo should do for
the project.  You are putting the cart before the horse.  This is in
general no different from any other contribution to gcc.


When I personally look at your current logo, I don't see anything
relevant to gcc.  It could be for any GNU project--and there are many
many GNU projects, some of which could probably use a new logo even
more than gcc does.  Also, a simple picture of a gnu head has long
been the logo for the GNU project as a whole (e.g., www.gnu.org).

The current gcc logo doesn't have much to do with compilers, but at
least it has a connection to the history of gcc: the EGCS fork which
turned into the current gcc.


I am not a logo designer, so take the following with a big grain of
salt.  When I think about logos for gcc, I would focus more on the
compiler aspect than the GNU aspect.  gcc is just one of many GNU
projects, but it is the only GNU compiler.  So some ideas of mine
would be:

    * A machine with a crank turning C code into assembler code.
      Perhaps a stylized gnu on the machine.

    * A play on the well-known dragon book:
          http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201100886/qid=1105543334/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2501470-4412062?v=glance&s=books
      with perhaps a gnu defeating the dragon (personally I prefer the
      picture on the first edition, but I couldn't find that online).

    * A visual joke on the compiler structure, with
      C/C++/Java/Ada/Fortran growing into trees, with the leaves being
      RTL or perhaps just assembler code.

    * A representation of the key role the compiler plays in the free
      software ideaverse, with ideas being transformed into ones and
      zeroes, or some other representation of executable code.

Naturally I need to give not just a new logo, but an argument for
changing the existing one.  The argument I would give is that the
current logo is essentially an old joke.  The EGCS fork is old history
to many people currently working on the compiler, and for them the
current logo is basically meaningless.  So perhaps it is time for a
new logo which is more focused on the current compiler rather than the
old history.

The hypothetical new logo should represent the compiler.  It should
ideally represent what the compiler does, and what it aspires to do,
albeit perhaps in highly symbolized form.  It should be recognizable,
look good in several different sizes on computer screens, look good in
black and white, look good on a T-shirt or a book cover.  It should
inspire people and give them confidence.  It should feed the hungry
and create world peace.  It should be only 1K.  That is what I would
like to see in a logo.

Ian