freebsd-advocacy Digest, Vol 124, Issue 3

[ac]

Nicole wrote:

> I know that. I was trying to convey how it's just too basic to make into
>something that could be easily conveighed. IE if you break it down to its basic
>form.. It looks like a rounded viking helmet. 
>  
>
> [snip]
>
> I just don't find the new "logo" catchy and singularly identifiable enough
>without all the cool shading effects and such.
>
You're right! Look, you've said "_singular_ identifiability", exactly 
that's why the new logo was introduced - Beastie has too much 
associations in many corners of the mind. And this is uresolvable problem.

The new logo has problems regarding identifiabilty, but it's the matter 
of time and promotion.

> If you can't draw it on a
>blackboard and have people know what it is, it's not going to be effective.
>  
>
You're wrong here. Many most known signs were made from almost 
meaningless - at the moment of invention - graphics. Nike's logo as a 
good example. This way you can ensure that it will be _singular_ 
identifiable, after you give it meaning by promotion (or simply by 
utilization).

> It's no more emotional than if someone changed the theme song to your favorite
>TV to something you disliked or changed the packaging for you favorate soda or
>something. 
>  
>
I understand you, but anyway, the new logo is right decision