›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Tux really sux. (or "Why do open-source project have such ugly mascots?")

SailSail
edited July 2007 in Everything Else
Am I the only one who thinks this penguin is really ugly?

image

What about this gnu?

image

This demon?

image

And don't get me started on the dragon.

image

There's also this "pidgin".

image

What is the deal with all these ugly open-source mascots?

Comments

  • MrRobotoMrRoboto
    edited July 2007
    Open source people don't have money to pay for a graphic design company to create the whole corporate image?
    Post edited by MrRoboto on
  • raquorraquor
    I rather like many of the Tux logos I've seen. Helluva lot better than the 4 colored squares of a certain OTHER piece of software.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    The mandriva penguin is my favourite and the normal Tux style penguin isn't bad either.
    Good graphical designers aren't cheap. The recent London Olympics 2012 cost about £8000 and it's not even as good as goatse.
    the thing is that you know that a penguin anywhere on any piece of software means its Linux. The Tux penguin is just the basic representation of that. Additionally, what was the last major distro release to feature any of these as their logo?
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    What about the BSD Daemon?
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    They changed to this orb with a pair of horns logo.
    image
  • AprecheApreche
    Tux is cool, and the new BSD is also cool, but the others you posted suck. The reason? Open source programmers insist on their mascots also being open source. It is hard to find open source artists.
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited July 2007
    More open source graphic designers and designing a logo takes a lot more time and effort than just a one off drawing.
    I do think the KDE dragon is a bit silly but KDE is usually signified just by the cogs. Pidgin.. bad name, bad mascot but not everyone can be perfect.
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • SailSail
    edited July 2007
    I am defining mascot as a character that represents the project.

    The new BSD does look cool, but it's no longer a mascot. I added the old, ugly demon to my list.
    Post edited by Sail on
  • OmnutiaOmnutia
    edited July 2007
    Well then what would you define as a good looking mascot? They're meant to look goofy and some of them still look good.
    Id just like to say beforehand that by discounting logos you can't use the Firefox Fox as it is the logo.
    Anyway, dragons are always cool so KDE is instantly good.
    [Edit] What are you comparing these to as your view of good mascots for proprietary software?
    Post edited by Omnutia on
  • SailSail
    edited July 2007
    They're meant to look goofy and some of them still look good.
    Yes, but I find most of the open-source mascots to be ugly.
    Id just like to say beforehand that by discounting logos you can't use the Firefox Fox as it is the logo.
    This was purposeful. Just as the OpenSUSE chameleon is only part of a logo, the fire fox is only part of the Firefox logo.
    What are you comparing these to as your view of good mascots for proprietary software?
    Come to think of it, software mascots in general tend to be horrible. But, no. I am comparing them to my view of good mascots in general. Snap, Crackle, and Pop are good mascots. The Jolly Green Giant is a good mascot.

    What Scott said makes sense. These are programmers, not advertisers or graphic designers.
    Post edited by Sail on
Sign In or Register to comment.