On Jan 14, 2008 4:37 PM, Thayer Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2008 2:48 PM PST, Aaron Griffin <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2008 3:05 PM, Damir Perisa <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > Monday 14 January 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > > | > I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site
> > > | > now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel
> > > | > logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P
> > > | >
> > > | > Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or
> > > | > update 'em.
> > > |
> > > | Well, Thayer has recommended we remove it because the logo loses
> > > | most of the effect in the craptacular colors provided by the
> > > | initial VGA framebuffer.... me, I'm neutral. I don't reboot enough
> > > | for that image to be relevant.
> > >
> > > send me the SVG of the logo and i'll try to make a kernel logo that
> > > tries to resemble the 24bit one. i did so for the last.
> > >
> > > the VGA framebuffer has a limited ammoutn of colours, you have to
> > > dither them to make them look nice.
> > >
> > > arend we having also a black/white version that looks fine? and also a
> > > grey version?
> > Does this help? http://www.cinderwick.ca/archer/ I didn't look too
> > hard. There may be svg on there.
> > If not I cc'd Thayer on here 8)
> If my opinion counts, and if a logo must be used (*grumble*) then I
> would definitely prefer it to be 100% white. Personally, I don't see a
> need for graphical icons in the framebuffer, but if they're going to be
> used, it should be as subtle as possible.
> All of the new logos are now available at http://www.archlinux.org/art/,
> including an all-white version.
My eyes! The goggles do nothing! I can't see!