New GCC logotype development. (Was:Re: New GCC logotypeversion 1.6 (Sorry, I forgot to attach the image).)

[Vladius]

Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:

>Vladius <boxforsr@inbox.ru> writes:
>  
>
>>Joe Buck wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 03:50:54PM +0300, Vladius wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>   Ehhhg, ehhgg... Then I do not want either. Don't understand me 
>>>>wrong, but this is not me who will distribute the picture. Mailing list 
>>>>is for development purposes only.
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>So you think that this list is appropriate to post every minor edit of
>>>your proposed logo, when no one has asked you to even do a logo?
>>>      
>>>
>
>And a logo is _supposed_ to be stylized - making it more realistic
>is less logo-like.
>  
>
    Yes, I can understand that. But I think that the style is not 
mandatory now, since realistic picture can be converted to particular 
style more easily than non-realistic to realistic, Agree?

>>>Every image you send is going to thousands of subscribers, so you *are*
>>>distributing the pictures.  That's not efficient.
>>>
>>>Please stop posting images to this list.  The resource consumption and
>>>the space in the archives is excessive.  If you refuse to use a web site,
>>>then you'll need some other mechanism.
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>    You should check out my last post - New GCC logo (EGCS) . I've 
>>told, that I'll no longer post minor releases. 
>>    
>>
>
>Don't post any releases at all.
>  
>
    hmm.

>  
>
>>You have to excuse me, 
>>since I didn't know wether I can attach pictures or not. I didn't think 
>>that 200KB are too much, sorry.
>>    
>>
>
>200KB * 1000s of users - some of us pay our own money to read this 
>list perhaps via slow modems.
>If (as I have in the past) I was reading this in a hotel room via 
>9600Baud Mobile-Phone-as-modem 200KB of off-topic would really anoy me.
>  
>
    Excuse me one more time, please =)

>>   Joe, I would like You to see it and say what You think about it. 
>>I've added an egg, like You like =)
>>    
>>
>
>The egg was a play on anglo pronouncing 'egcs' - so its time may have 
>past now. GCC might need a new logo 
>  
>
    Yes, but many people say that they want it to be there.

>BUT GCC TECHNICAL LIST IS NOT THE PLACE TO DISCUSS MARKETING IDEAS
>
>Take it up with Webmaster of gcc.gnu.org and get them to direct you to 
>the appropriate forum GCC list is not it.
>  
>
    I will do like You say, thank You.