Demon license?

[Bart Silverstrim]

On Jul 19, 2005, at 11:36 AM, Josh Ockert wrote:

>> 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.

I know I'D be angry at people who show an utter lack of disrepect, you 
punk!  (ha ha..touche'!)

> You are a troll. You go on and on,
> misquoting, deliberately trying to confuse the issue, and just
> generally adding nothing to the discussion.

That's kind of odd since I remember Ted giving help on the list a 
number of times.  Personally the term Troll is becoming rather watered 
down, which is a shame...it used to actually mean someone who was out 
to do nothing but cause trouble.  This is no longer how the word is 
used now apparently.  It is a generic term used towards anyone with 
whom one has a disagreement with online.

One thing I do not understand is why people say things like "you're 
deliberately misinterpreting..."..."you're confusing the 
issue..."...etc....and not stop, take a breath, and actually spell out 
the issue(s) *as you understand them* and ask for clarifications.  Get 
some common ground on which to communicate.  If one is talking about 
apples and the other bitching about oranges, at least get that 
straightened out.  Otherwise, you're just wasting your time.

Spell out the issue.  Clarify for understanding.  Argue and *stay on 
topic* until resolved point by point.

Otherwise...quit wasting your time.

>> 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.

Technically, votes != 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.

Overall, the argument is foolish.  I really see why some people keep 
their OS projects to themselves for control, if for nothing else than 
to keep large groups of people from bitching about something that may 
or may not be within the scope of the project's goals to begin with.

Beastie has been associated with FreeBSD for how long now?  Since 1.0?  
Ronald McDonald...logo, or mascot?  Does it really matter?  They're 
considered one in the same by the public.

There are a number of more-religious-than-not people who had advocated 
getting rid of the logoscot of Beastie because he invokes the image of 
the "DEVIL".  There are many ignoramuses out there who think themselves 
experts in using computers because they get an MSCE cert.  There was 
someone in my own computer science classes who managed to pass with her 
four year degree without even knowing what in hell an operating system 
was in relation to an application. These people are out there making up 
the field of "IT Professionals".  Who exactly is qualified to decide 
whether or not Beastie should be the logoscot of the Project?  The 
users who couldn't tell a source code file from a binary?  The users 
who can configure a DHCP server without glancing at the console?   I 
would think the Project people would...since they're the ones doing the 
project.  What they say, goes.

If you don't like it, fork the project with your own 
logo/logoscot/motto/t-shirt.  What you say at the point, goes.

>> 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.

Yeah, because a fat penguin is a wonderful image to portray.  On the 
other hand, IBM tended to partner with actual corporations with an 
actual logo...for themselves.  Linux gets benefits from the ensuing 
halo effect, but there are particular businesses that get the direct 
benefits.  I don't see Linspire doing cartwheels because of IBM.

The thing is, FreeBSD as a project may think it's NICE to get 
hardware/cash/goodies from businesses, but doesn't set out courting to 
get them (note...not on FBSD Project team, these are my observations 
and opinions).  You wouldn't necessarily WANT it.  When you start 
hopping into bed with particular businesses, you start making 
concessions to them.  Then things just start getting messy.

If you're an impartial project you don't need to set out in search of 
the niche. FreeBSD is growing in use because it is good to use for 
certain applications, and the niche has come to FreeBSD.  Theo de Raadt 
doesn't give a damn about who uses what with his project; it's art to 
him, he does this for himself, and despite his sandpaper personality 
OpenBSD has quite a reputation for itself and is a player in the 
firewall and secure server field.  Wanna donate to him?  Go 
ahead...he'll say thanks, but if you try to get him to scratch your 
back as a tit-for-tat, he'll more than likely give ye' the finger and 
sidle off.

FreeBSD doesn't need strings attached via corporate entanglements, in 
my opinion.

If people are interested in this with the hearts, go start a business.  
Come up with the logo for your business, reselling/supporting FreeBSD.  
Get a team to work on developing what you see as shortcomings in 
FreeBSD.  Then take your corporation and approach other businesses, 
explaining that your spiffy OS, based on FreeBSD, is better than XYZ.  
Leave FreeBSD to keep developing and chugging away as it has been.

>> 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.

Might want to tell that to Nike...

According to dictionary.com, a logo is:
A name, symbol, or trademark designed for easy and definite 
recognition, especially one borne on a single printing plate or piece 
of type.  Short for logogram and logotype.  A company emblem or device.

> Those responsible for the new logo contest
> contend that the logo in this sense of the word is that found at
> http://www.freebsd.org/gifs/freebsd_1.gif. 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"!

I know a guy in a yellow jumpsuit and clown makeup just SCREAMS 
McDonalds.  Or the golden arches sitting alone, without the rest of the 
name.   Anyone who is familiar at all with FreeBSD for more than a 
day's research time knows about Beastie, in graphic if not in name.

Tux...doesn't tell me about Red Hat.  Or Linux, for that matter.

Come to think of it, most logos don't have you automaticaly conclude 
<MAKER!>.  They are associated to each other artificially so you see 
one and think of the other.  I mean...a logo is a visual representation 
of the first few notes of the Jaws theme.  Or the bladed glove and 
striped sweater...what does that image remind most reasonable US (and 
European, perhaps?) people to think of?  And a cracked hockey mask...?

Whenever enthusiasts and project sites have gone up for FreeBSD, 
Beastie has normally been found somewhere on the page.  They just go 
together and are associated with each other, and for all intents and 
purposes, arguing logo vs. mascot vs. logoscot is merely arguing 
semantics.  Beastie reminds users of FreeBSD of FreeBSD like a pretty 
blue screen reminds them of Windows.

> It is this goal that one hopes will be
> accomplished with the new logo.

To what end?  Try to become someone's corporate bitch?  Become 
marketing friendly, maybe even more user click-and-drool friendly?  Get 
it to the point where Windows system admins won't need to know squat 
about MX records in order to set up and run a mail server or DNS 
server?   Maybe we could encourage more growth in that sector of 
IT...you know...IT people who know squat...dumb things down a little 
more.  First step is usually a shiny little LOGO to slap on a business 
card.

Let's make the logo something inoffensive too...I mean, we wouldn't 
want more of those idiot geek people and their inside jokes about 
"daemons" to continue their subversive campaign to have people learn 
things.  Let's make the logo a puddle of yellow water with a trout 
jumping out of it...symbolic of all the pissing matches this argument 
as spawned.  Unless the whole fish thing would be offensive to Xtians 
(http://www.answers.com/topic/xmas).

>> 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.

Um...why bother using it at all then?  I mean, there's no logical 
necessity to having a logo or a mascot...just wipe it down completely.  
Purge FreeBSD of the graphics, and get rid of the copyright statements, 
etc...make it a pure OS, consisting solely of code necessary to 
function.  Make it more efficient, the source is smaller, and how can 
it be offensive it is stripped of all non-technical aspects?

>
> 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
> whereas
> Current logo/mascot/whateverthe****youwannacallitidontreallygivea****
> => Some change-resistant people are happy.

Forgive my rambling, but

FreeBSD isn't out to take over the world.

It was simply made to do a job.

It was and is improved and used by geeks who like inside jokes, and 
after all, when it comes to free-source operating systems, it is a 
geek's party and the market promoters are the crashers.

If you want to use something with fewer headaches than Windows tends to 
give, use FreeBSD or Linux.  If not, FreeBSD isn't one particular 
business's project or pet ho'.  The FreeBSD project team gives their 
own time for development, and if some businesses as a whole sticks 
their nose up at it it's not a reason for FreeBSD leaders to cry 
themselves to sleep at night.

If you want to pursue the corporate sponsorship route, start a 
corporation, integrate FreeBSD into your project OS, and start 
approaching them.  Leave FreeBSD out of it.

>> 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.

Then don't explain it.  RTFM or ignore it.  If one is truly tired of 
babying the PHBs, they stop coddling and get the job done or move on.  
Or reply, "It just is", or have them explain some irrelevant aspect of 
their job or hobby.  I mean...why a flying multi-colored window for a 
logo/symbol?  Is it a reference to broken windows, or draftiness?  Can 
you Mister-Windows-User explain that?

Well...it just is.

Users are by their very nature dense.  Ooh...prettier less offensive 
logo now!  So...tell me....why do I need to "log in" to use it again?  
Why do I need to type XYZ to do ABC?  Why....

>> 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.

Wow, that is a formula that just screams that the end result will be 
efficient and useful.  Because, you know, all good things came out of 
committee...

>>  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.

Actually, OpenBSD associates with the blowfish more than both 
Puffy-and-Beastie-like-daemon.  I see Puffy, I think OpenBSD.  I see 
Daemon-like-creature, I think FreeBSD.

>> 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.

But is it still just a flying window?  Since when did "stylized" mean 
new logo?  If it's still basically the same logo...look at it, stylized 
as it is, and still recognize it as belonging to MS Windows, how does 
this negate his statement above?

>>> 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.

Isn't the burden of proof on the person making the assertion?

And wouldn't it be pointless if it's the Project people who are in 
charge that make the final say, unless you spin off a new fork?