From: | Lamar Owen <lowen(at)pari(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: the PostgreSQL Elephant |
Date: | 2004-07-11 01:53:04 |
Message-ID: | 200407102153.04876.lowen@pari.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Saturday 10 July 2004 14:53, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Things in favor of the Blue Elephant Head (BEH):
> 1) We've been using it for about 4 years not and it's getting some
> recognition as our emblem;
Nope. We've been using it on the website at least for only 2 years. And not
quite two years; according to the WayBack Machine it first appeared in March,
2003, which is not even a year and a half. We used the other for at least as
long.
> 3) It's simple and easy to reproduce in a variety of sizes and on a variety
> of media, including t-shirts and stickers and 128-pixel web buttons.
> (this is a reason why I'd vote against the "elepant-diamond" or
> "elephant-breaking-through-wall" images.
This is quite true.
> Problems with the Blue Elephant Head:
> 1) PostgreSQL Inc. is also using it as a company logo. This is obviously
> something we and they should have discussed an age ago; we'll have to deal
> with it now, I suppose.
They were, in fact, using it first. The WayBack Machine gives a pgsql.com
page from August, 1999 with the BEH.
http://web.archive.org/web/19990826121148/http://pgsql.com/ is the link.
> Difficulty of Switching to Something Else:
> 1) The BEH is already being widely recognized as "ours". This summer,
> we'll be distributing 2000 CDs and 100 T-shirts and I don't know how many
> flyers with the BEH on them. So even were we to adopt a different logo
> today, people would still think of the BEH and see it around
> for the next year or more.
Probably more. I personally don't mind giving Marc and PostgreSQL, Inc, that
sort of coverage. After all, they have done a great deal for PostgreSQL the
project. However, trademark might become an issue, too. But that's
something I really don't want to deal with; there are people far better
equipped to deal with that sort fo question than I.
> 2) Even if we switched to a different *design*, we should keep the
> elephant concept for the reasons mentioned above, and because switching
> animals/objects would really confuse people and make them think that we'd
> had a project fork or something. This would mean
> that we would need to seek new designs, as the Slony elephant is spoken
> for. Does anyone have a copy of the elephant designs Cornelia submitted
> last year?
I'd like to see something like that. I did see an elephant logo for a hosting
company in Linux Journal a couple of issues back, but it was red or orange.
The elephant per se is definitely attached to us.
> Overall, I'd prefer to stick with the BEH. We have too much other
> stuff to do to deal with a logo search and evaluation now. BUT, if we're
> even *contemplating* a new logo, we do *need* to do it now because a
> year from now the BEH will be really irremovable.
I think if the PgSQL Inc issue can be easily dealt with we should go with
being the least confusing. I just personally prefer the diamond one; but
that is just my preference. My preference and what is good for PostgreSQL do
not need to agree.
--
Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC 28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-07-11 02:06:50 | Re: Two Flyers |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2004-07-11 01:37:39 | Re: Two Flyers |