update_4

[jmak]

On 7/12/06, Jani Monoses <jani.monoses at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Let me tell you that a lot of great ideas has been flying around in
> > the edgy artwork discussions. Mr Soutleworth is pushing for a very
> > fancy glassy, even baroque look for ubuntu in edgy. The same thing has
> > been happening in the kde community.
> > Here is a sneak peak of kde ideas they are working on.
> >
> > http://bootsplash.org/kdm-edgy.png
> >
> > http://bootsplash.org/kdm-edgy1.png
>
>
> I did not follow the ubuntu-artwork discussions too closely but was
> the idea not that
> Human stays and is refined for edgy, and four _additional_ but not
> default themes are made by the community, for which the glassy you
> linked to is one proposal?

It's true, those images are just a proposal by now but knowing the
mood of the artists and the preferences of Mr Shoutleeworth I can
safely assume that they will move move into the glossy direction. Soon
I will know more definite. But even if not, why should we follow
blindly what the ubuntu people do. In this way, we always follow and
never lead.

>
> > I agree with Vincent, why do you want to keep the same style of logo
> > for eternity? Things are changing, ideas are changing, times are
> > changing and the components too have to change accordingly. Nothing is
> > carved in stones.
>
> I agree with chosing new artwork if it's better liked by the majority
> of those who express their view, but not just for change's sake. Times
> are changing but I am
> not sure it's a good idea to change the look of the desktop every six months.
> There is definitely an excess of creativity and lot more good work is done that
> can fit in an install, that's why I think good stuff still should be shipped but
> we need to be careful with the defaults.

The logo, I am proposing, cannot be considered change, I merely
stylized of the old one to be more in style with the general
improvements in other software.

>
> As for chaning I think logos are the things which need to change the
> least, if at all.
> It's ok for wallpapers or color schemes but logos should not change too much.
>
> > I completely, disagree with the approach that we should keep xubuntu
> > as a second or third rate, boring operating system. Look at the
>
> I don't think xubuntu is boring now, and if it is to some there could
> be less intrusive ways to explore, than making it have 3d looks (as an
> example).
>
> > visuals of the major distros (fedora, suse, xandros and so on). Why do
> > you want to make xubuntu look like a leftover from 70ths and 80ths.
> > I, personally, took Mr Shoutleworth's idea seriously. Here is a
> > reminder "My only requirement is that they (the distros) ALL be
> > consistently world class (looking DAMN good)"
>
> Agreed. That's why the artwork and the logo you proposed is to be
> judged based on
> how much it is liked, and so far people have expressed why they do or
> do not like it.

In regard to the subject you are mentioning above let me quote Mr Shautleworth;

"It's perhaps worth pointing out that Ubuntu is NOT a democracy.
We have open processes, open governance, and transparency throughout.
But we also try to get the "best" person to execute a given part of
it, and give them freedom to do it the way THEY think is best. We draw
the best talent from the community, then we give it the authority to
run with it's vision, even if there are voices trying to slow it
down."

J. Mak
-- 
http://jozmak.googlepages.com/