Demon license?

Josh Ockert torstenvl at
Tue Jul 19 15:36:47 GMT 2005

> Go ahead.  Blocking it just shows that you are totally unwilling to
> consider any position different than your own.  I am at least
> willing to continue to discuss it.

No. I have no objection to your position. I have an objection to your
complete lack of disrespect. You are a troll. You go on and on,
misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just
generally adding nothing to the discussion.

> Much like the current US President George Bush blocks his ears when
> people point out to him that he committed to fire whoever leaked
> a covert CIA operative's identity - then when it was discovered that
> his right-hand-man did it, he goes back on his word.

Except that in that case people were pointing out facts. As you said
in your email, there has been no official vote. So you have no facts.
You are in effect contradicting yourself when you say that those in
favor of the new logo ARE in the extreme minority, but then say there
was never any tally of opinions.

> If you "block the address of anyone who continues on in this manner"
> you simply prove my point for me - that the proponents of this
> anti-Beastie crusade only care what they want, not what anyone else wants.

I never said I was anti-Beastie. I'm not. I have many pieces of
pro-Beastie propaganda (look the word up before you start flaming). I
do however think it would be beneficial to have an image that is more
abstract and more suitable to corporate customers. Corporate backing
helps penetration into the market and it sometimes can result in
funding. Refer please to Linux and IBM.

> This "mascot" argument has been brought up before and disproved
> before.  Beastie has been treated as the Project's logo since FreeBSD 1.1
> He has been referred to as a mascot - irregularly - but his image has
> been used as the defacto logo image for FreeBSD.

There is nothing to disprove. It's not a formal argument. It's a
statement. He will be the project's mascot. Period. There is nothing
more to discuss. I have never said he *wasn't* the logo. If you think
I said that, please reread my original post.

> Perhaps nobody that YOU might consider authoratative has ever made a
> blanket statement that "Beastie's image is the official FreeBSD Project's
> Logo" however that is nothing more than a semantic argument.  His
> image has been USED as the logo on just about every CDROM pressing
> that Walnut Creek ever sold, and in numerous other websites and
> on the FreeBSD Project's website.  And I am not talking about the full
> color images on the front of the CD jewel cases, I'm talking about the
> minature Beastie logo image on the back.  Face the fact, Beastie is the
> current logo.

I've never disagreed with you on this. Before. Now I will. There are
generally two types of logos. There is the "Official Logo" which is
often what you see on media packaging. This is usually a combination
of words and a graphic. Those responsible for the new logo contest
contend that the logo in this sense of the word is that found at I find that I have no
trouble agreeing with them. A logo is what's supposed to give you a
first impression of a product. A logo is about marketing. Advertising.
Viewed in this light, Beastie cannot be the logo because he does not
have any direct link to the FreeBSD project, he is only associated
with it. One does not see Beastie for the first time and automatically
conclude "FreeBSD"! It is this goal that one hopes will be
accomplished with the new logo.

> Now, you may argue that it is time for the FreeBSD Project to change
> it's logo - although I have yet to see a logical reason for this -
> and I think I and the userbase would have some respect for this
> argument if you could use a logical proof.  But your argument that
> he never was the logo to begin with is nothing more than an attempt
> to side-step the discussion of why do we need to change the logo now.

Logical proofs are intended to demonstrate truths. An action in the
future is not a truth. No intelligent person would claim that "FreeBSD
should change its logo" is a theorem to be proven by a system of
postulates and axioms. By virtue of the word "should" it is entirely a
statement of judgment. The reasoning behind this judgment is that
there are many cases in which FreeBSD might have been used that it was
not because some PHB didn't like Beastie. To be honest, considering
corporate culture and the threat of being sued and/or required to take
sensitivity classes, I cannot fault the PHB for not wanting Beastie
around. In fact, if you search the mail archives you'll find people
trying to get rid of the Beastie boot menu because it got them into
trouble at work.

Forgive my rambling. My point is:
Corporate-friendly politically-correct logo => higher market
penetration => more people using and hopefully contributing to FreeBSD
=> FreeBSD gets better
Current logo/mascot/whateverthe****youwannacallitidontreallygivea****
=> Some change-resistant people are happy.

> In short, you know your arguments for making a logo change won't hold
> water so you would rather not have to make them - so your going to
> try to argue that you don't have to make them "since he was never
> the logo to begin with"

See above.

> This is a cowards argument and not one that will generate any respect
> among the userbase.

Except those that are tired of having to explain what a daemon is to
people who don't have any appreciation for the internal workings of
the system.

> And trying to argue that there's room for both a logo and a mascot
> is purely an argument of appeasement.

You've obviously never been in charge of a large organization. The
whole point is appeasement. You're trying to make the least number of
people pissed off.

>  There can only be one recognizable
> imagery for The FreeBSD Project, just as for ANY product.

Really? OpenBSD happens to use both a blowfish (Puffy) and a
Beastie-like daemon quite successfully. Please see and Please also see the
OpenBSD 3.7 logo available at
and shown on the front page at

>  And the
> appeasement argument also totally ignores that it is the userbase's
> choice of what imagery they recognize as being associated with FreeBSD
> that is going to win.  If the userbase turns it's back on the "new logo"
> that this ill-advised contest comes up with, then your going to be
> stuck with Beastie continuing to be used and recognized as the 'real'
> logo.

You keep using "userbase" as though it is equal to yourself. I suggest
you stop speaking for other people unless you know exactly what they
believe. I'm part of the userbase, so I find this really offensive.

> The situation would be analogous to if one day Microsoft decided they
> wanted to stop using the Windows logo and the word "Windows" to refer
> to their product line.  It wouldn't work because the Windows userbase
> would simply ignore any alternative attempt at a logo than the flying
> Window.

That's funny. In XP they redid their old logo. It's now much more stylized.

> >Furthermore, you and some of those sharing your viewpoints have tried
> >to paint those wishing for a different logo as in the extreme
> >minority.
> They are.

Prove it.

> >Personally, I think it's a good idea to create for ourselves
> >something that can contribute to a public face less open to
> >misinterpretation while still safeguarding part of the community
> >culture. I haven't spoken up on it so far because I saw no need to. I
> >submit that it's entirely possible that there are many like me. Being
> >more vocal does not make you the majority.
> >
> Yes, as a matter of fact, it does.  The FreeBSD Project isn't just
> composed of the core members and the software.  It encompasses
> that as well as the entire userbase.  If you want the userbase to
> come round to your point of view on this logo thing, then you need
> to handle the userbase with respect.

I am part of that userbase. And I don't feel disrespected. And more
vocal != majority.

I need to go. You can respond or not, but if you do, be respectful.
And calm. And logical. If you have to choose, just be logical.

Josh Ockert
WMU Student: French Linguistics, Computer Science
The irony in biblical creationists' rhetoric of implicitly claiming
that God's universe is so inconsistent that carbon decays at erratic
rates is too delicious to ignore.

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list