Logos of GNU packages – world's worst logos?

Re:Logos of GNU packages – world's worst logos? by oleganza on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:25AM (#7304477)

I view a project as a whole: its face, its code, its features. If people can criticize elegance or efficiency of the code, why can't they criticize elegance or efficiency of its brand? Rails, for instance, is an example of a project where people did not just "do code", but also promoted best practices, designed a nice website, created a blog etc. That inspired Ruby & RubyGems to ultimately have nice websites and logos, contributed for free by professional designers.

Any open source project will help more people if it has a friendly face: well-documented code, nice logo, well-written articles explaining motivation behind technical decisions and so on. All of this contributes to the project's overall utility.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Logos of GNU packages – world's worst logos? by zorked on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:41AM (#7304556)

There's a product/market fit thing going on here. Rails is the kind of project that caters to the kind of people who value and can contribute "nice websites and logos" because that is what a lot of them do for a living with Rails.

Add a startup-like website to the GNU binutils project and it's going to look pretty dumb to the no-nonsense crowd that needs assemblers. A "nice website" website is not going to extend the appeal of cross-assembling ARM microcontroller code on a x86-64 one bit.

[ Parent | on HN ]