From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [ART] Updated SLiM theme with GuixSD logo Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:46:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87mw4i4009.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1423767397.4167.5.camel@openmailbox.org> <87vbj6n4i2.fsf@mango.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53126) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YMCpa-0007GI-2w for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 04:46:38 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YMCpW-0002ED-TZ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 04:46:38 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:40902) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YMCpW-0002E9-QB for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 13 Feb 2015 04:46:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87vbj6n4i2.fsf@mango.localdomain> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Thu, 12 Feb 2015 23:34:29 +0100") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > - do we really want to use the abbreviation "GuixSD" (rather than the > actual name) so prominently? In my opinion the abbreviation just > makes it easier to refer to the system, but it's not like that's the > actual name. As the focus is on offering a GNU system (which just > happens to be called Guix System Distribution or GuixSD in ambiguous > circumstances) wouldn't it be better to stay with either just the new > wildebeest logo or simply the GNU logo? That=E2=80=99s the feeling that many of us shared several weeks ago, that we shouldn=E2=80=99t do any branding other than GNU. OTOH, it=E2=80=99s become clear that we=E2=80=99d have no support in doing = that and no influence over the GNU =E2=80=9Cbrand=E2=80=9D; in that sense, we would hav= e to spend a lot of energy for a result that may be unsatisfying. I suspect Felipe reached the same conclusion. We continue to support GNU obviously, and I hope we can contribute to an evolution in this area, even if not as directly as initially planned. Does that make sense? Ludo=E2=80=99.