Logos of GNU packages – world's worst logos?

Re:Logos of GNU packages – world's worst logos? by asdfaoeu on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @07:37AM (#7304532)

I think most would consider that at best a distraction.

More often then not overly flashy websites seem to look bad on my book. To me it seems more like they are trying to slip something under the rug while simple designs come across as more focused. Like http://prgmr.com http://tarsnap.com and http://nearlyfreespeech.net .

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Logos of GNU packages – world's worst logos? by dysoco on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @08:01AM (#7304642)

I agree, I'd rather have a website like http://www.slackware.com/ than any of that bootstrap stuff.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Logos of GNU packages – world's worst logos? by aestra on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @08:16AM (#7304681)

It is worth noting that the Slackware homepage hasn't changed much in almost 15 years. The only changed they seemed to have made is changing it from a white text on back background design to a black text on white background design very early on.

https://web.archive.org/web/19991117022152/http://slackware....

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Logos of GNU packages – world's worst logos? by sbuk on Wednesday February 26, 2014 @08:26AM (#7304726)

Why? The "bootstrap" stuff utilises modern, standards based semantic markup. The linked site is poor both aesthetically and technically.

[ Parent | on HN ]