> Well, could this be because the project is called _Alpine_ Linux !? ;-)
> Thats exactly the "issue" i was talking about. Our project name is
> Alpine Linux.
> Absolutley, I dont think anybody want to change the name ( I love it).
I'm sorry, but I don't get your point.
On one hand you argue the Alpine part of the project name could mislead
people into not recognizing a Linux based OS, on the other hand you
stated you don't want the project name to change.
The name has historic origins, but IMHO still fits, even though the
project is not about giving away mountains for free. Rather it is about
saving people from a mountain of workload, which is another of those
"vague" arguments. ;-)
> Alpine is not *only* a firewall, it has been used for many other
> situations as stated before by Nathanael.
I never intended to imply being a firewall was the only feature of
Alpine Linux. We are all aware of the many packages available. The
mountain and firewall picture only showed for a randomly selected
feature, that there are aspects of Alpine Linux represented in the name
of the project, if one was willing to see them.
> As stated before, I think your arguments regarding alps vs alpine are
> vague, [..]
It seems what you're looking for is some kind of direct advertisement in
the form of "this is what you get" for the logo. How would you symbolize
the main characteristics of Alpine Linux without reverting to a physical
object like a server or optical disc, that once again could be
misunderstood for being the product manufactured?
Christianity doesn't sell crosses, Judaism doesn't sell David stars and
Islam doesn't sell moons, even though from a design standpoint these are
among the best logos there are. (Please, don't be offended by these
examples, if your are agnostic or atheist or your personal belief is not
represented in this not in an way complete list)
> I dont see any reason why i should be able to recreate any logo.
This is one of the tests commonly used to qualify the recognizability of
a logo and to determine, how "deep" the logo penetrates your mind.
> There are many logos which i am unable to reproduce, but it would
> recognise them instantly. For instance that American soft-drink company
> with the red logo. Its much more complicated than our current logo, but
> I'm sure lots of people will recognise it.
Because the logo you mentioned contains the brand's name in writing, it
is difficult to say how much of the recognizability comes from
understanding the writing. Try recognizing the same brand with the name
phonicly written in Korean or Arabic. The only thing left are the colour
red and the bubbles, which are not enough to recognize the brand free of
doubt within a moment. So not a really great logo.
Quite contrary, take the shape of the bottle this soft-drink company
used up to the sixties or seventies, which is very well recognized
around the world independently of the colour it is reproduced in. Andy
Warhol, for instance, used the bottle differently coloured in several of
his works even without the brand's logo and the brand is recognized
> I have nothing against *limited* colors schemes that change, but please
> dont change logo colors, its a no go in CI.
The recognizability of any logo worth mentioning is not limited to a
single colour set. It is a fundamental rule in corporate identity (CI)
to design the logo save for monochrome reproduction, e.g. b/w xeroxing.
The corporate colour scheme is never intended to limit the colours of
any depiction of the logo, but to implement a general "look and feel" of
the brand. To state a logo is only to be reproduced within the bounds of
the corporate colour scheme would be an upturn of this basic CI rule.
This even holds true for brands that are strongly associated with a
certain colour like "Big Blue" and the red of the soft-drink company you
mentioned, which I've seen in different colours as well (e.g. the black
coloured "Zero" product line).
Good Night and Good Luck, Tiger
Received on Tue May 13 2014 - 12:18:53 GMT