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>]

Matt Austern wrote:

> On Jan 11, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Vladius wrote:
>
> > > One way in which the existing logo succeeds as a logo (a more 
> > > specialized issue than succeeding as a picture) is that it's line 
> > > art.  It reproduces nicely on a variety of output devices, including 
> > > monochrome devices and ones with limited resolution, and it can 
> > > easily be scaled or adapted to different needs.  If we ever do 
> > > decide we want to change or modify our existing logo, we need to 
> > > make sure to preserve those properties.
> >
> >
> >    Tech. progress moves forward. I really think, that it is not wise 
> > to keep in mind consoles and 16 coloured  palettes. Would You like me 
> > to create low-graphics variants?
>
>
> 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.

> As is, without going through that discussion in advance, I think there 
> is zero change that your pictures will be accepted as a new logo.

   I hope You are wrong.