Why are they destroying our nice Ubuntu logo?

[broseman]

Hello together!

I'm wondering what you think about the "new" logos of kubuntu and backports. Let me explain that.

There is the official ubuntu logo:

http://www.ubuntulinux.org/logo.jpg

But what about Kubuntu and backports? These two (great!) projects ar not officially supported by Canonical Ltd. and are therefor not allowed to use the official logo (at least, that's what I guess...).

I don't understand, why they won't design their own logo! (If they really need one... do they?) Instead, they use the official logo, destroy it, and create a corrupted ubuntu/notubuntu logo - neither a new logo, nor the ubuntu logo.

See yourself:

Kubuntu: http://www.kubuntu.org/kubuntu-final.png

Backports: http://backports.ubuntuforums.org/ubp.png

Personally, I don't like these logos. Not the graphics itself, but due to the reason above. What do you think?

Thanks for your time.

broseman

[Leif]

I think it's good that they use similar logos, as it reinforces the ubuntu logo and helps brand awareness. These projects are very close to main Ubuntu, and they should reflect that. I just wish they wouldn't go with the done-to-death blue stuff and stick to Ubuntu's colours though, which has the virtue of being somewhat distinctive.

[jdong]

I'll speak for Backports:

From the beginning (see the comments from Daniel Stone in this forum, thread "Backports -- anyone interested?"), Ubuntu developers have discouraged/looked down the project. I started out using the identical Ubuntu theme and logo, but then after reading all the Mozilla/Redhat logo crap, decided not to risk further trouble. I needed a distinctive logo, so I turned to our in-house graphics girl, Kassetra.


First, we tried a green Ubuntu logo. The green theme burnt my eyes after 5 minutes, so we went blue. Plus, I personally like blue. ;)

[bailout]

Firstly, I don't think it is really a major issue :mrgreen:

As to the design it is pretty obvious; they both are obviously linked to ubuntu but different to the main project and the slightly different logos reflect this very well. As to the colours, that is a personal preference, I much prefer the blue scheme.

[kassetra]

But what about Kubuntu and backports? These two (great!) projects ar not officially supported by Canonical Ltd. and are therefor not allowed to use the official logo (at least, that's what I guess...).

I don't understand, why they won't design their own logo! (If they really need one... do they?) Instead, they use the official logo, destroy it, and create a corrupted ubuntu/notubuntu logo - neither a new logo, nor the ubuntu logo.


Well, first of all, thank you for calling my work "destroyed and corrupted" ...

And No, since the Backports project is not an Official Ubuntu project, it cannot use the Official Ubuntu Logo.

Next - the reason I didn't create a brand-new logo for the Backports project was because it's not completely un-related to the official Ubuntu distribution, but it is not part of the official designation either. And YES it DOES need it's own logo.

jdong and I both agreed that the logo should be "part of the Ubuntu family" but not the exact same logo, and not something completely different. Believe me, I could have given him a completely independent logo (I've only been doing it for 11 years now!) I changed the official logo around to show that we were users helping users - with Ubuntu. It seemed like a good mix of the Official Ubuntu logo components, and our own Backports project ideals.

As for the color scheme, it is part of the official Ubuntu color palette, again, we didn't want to use the same exact colors as the official logo, so I took other colors from the official palette.

[carlc]

I think the kubuntu logo is appropriate. It looks good and seems to really integrate a kde "feel" with the ubuntu graphic. I am partial to blue, so the color is a plus too!

[lukem]

I suppose a logo is important, but it seems insignificant compared to the help these projects are providing to the community.

[panickedthumb]

I like the logos. With a different logo entirely, people may not know it's related. Just because it uses the name "ubuntu" doesn't mean it's related. Mozilla and FileZilla, for example, are not related. The similar branding helps the users realize what's up.

[broseman]

Thanks you for replys!

Well, first of all, thank you for calling my work "destroyed and corrupted" ...

jdong and kassetra, I didn't want to disrespect your affords and work around the outstanding backports project! I love it and I use it.

I would like to apologize, if I did that. Please, sorry.

As for the logo: I didn't call your logo itself corrupted! But isn't it an ubuntu logo, which isn't an ubuntu logo anymore? Could be, that "corrupted" is to harsh for that. Then again: Sorry. (English isn't my mother-tongue, I'm not sure how it sounds in your ears.)

Okay, that's it. Just wanted to hear what you all think about that. THX.

broseman

[Tymon]

Hmm if you look at the official Ubuntu logo as 3 people standing in a circle holding hands (from above) then this logo would mean they have their heads closer to eachother...

And as a tip: I would use the white space around the "head" used in the original to make a gap in the circle. And remove it from the outsides of the circle.

[defkewl]

What does Canonical has got to say about this?

[kassetra]

Hmm if you look at the official Ubuntu logo as 3 people standing in a circle holding hands (from above) then this logo would mean they have their heads closer to eachother...

And as a tip: I would use the white space around the "head" used in the original to make a gap in the circle. And remove it from the outsides of the circle.

The backports logo is three people helping each other... and I didn't want to remove the "head impression" left in the circle because they stop looking like people then.

[BWF89]

I think it's good that they use similar logos, as it reinforces the ubuntu logo and helps brand awareness. These projects are very close to main Ubuntu, and they should reflect that. I just wish they wouldn't go with the done-to-death blue stuff and stick to Ubuntu's colours though, which has the virtue of being somewhat distinctive.
What he said. It's basically the same distro so why change the logo?

BTW, what is backports?

[kassetra]

What he said. It's basically the same distro so why change the logo?

BTW, what is backports?

Well, I believe Kubuntu wanted it's own "identity" ... as well as the whole copyright logo thing...

Backports are the packages from Hoary that were re-packaged for Warty people, so we could have newer versions of apps. :)

We have a forum dedicated to backports, and there are repositories that you can add to your sources.list file to get updated packages. :)

[Randabis]

What he said. It's basically the same distro so why change the logo?

BTW, what is backports?
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=47

[daniels]

It's not that we're hyperprotective or anything -- it's just that they're different projects and deserve different logos so people can tell them apart.