I completely disagree. Tux is the success of mascots. With less successful followers such as darwin, freebsd and openbsd.

After finishing the article I still don't understand what were the reasons to scorn Tux. Maybe OP should have given an example of a good mascot for the readers to get the point.

I'm still quite happy with Tux though, it's a sober mascot that's very simple/minimal, and is easily recognizable.

Yes. Tux was one of the reasons I got in touch with Linux when I was young.

On the topic of mascots, the FreeBSD and Darwin logos follow the BSD Daemon, nicknamed Beastie, from 1984, more than they follow Tux.

Nice trivia

I like Tux, calm and hopeful.

If you push me to name a bad logo -> Perl 6 Butterfly (IMHO that is what nightmares are made of, sorry)

A negative rant from a domain named after a slang term for urine about a logo for an operating system. What was the point in this article? I certainly couldn't find one.

I love this rant with a passion. For me, Tux is the embodiment of the flat out refusal of the linux community at the time to even consider UX or graphic design. At a time when beating Windows on these areas was actually feasible, the OSS community preferred to stop at features, functional, no matter how well or badly done. My favorite example, which the author also quotes, is that the only decent OSS game people were able to come up with was a mario clone with Tux. Graphics? Why would we, we have Tux.

I really like how Ubuntu turned this around and showed people that a usable linux is possible.

this is one of the worst rant I've ever read.

If a logo can upset you so much, then i don't see how you can even live in this world.

What nonsense have I just read?