On 1/14/08, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 14, 2008 4:37 PM, Thayer Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Jan 14, 2008 2:48 PM PST, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Jan 14, 2008 3:05 PM, Damir Perisa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Monday 14 January 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote: > > > > | > I brought it up again since we've got the new logo on the site > > > > | > now, and people are making noise on the forums to get the kernel > > > > | > logo updated. People are just hard to please, heh. :P > > > > | > > > > > | > Anyway, a decision should be made - either take 'em out, or > > > > | > update 'em. > > > > | > > > > | Well, Thayer has recommended we remove it because the logo loses > > > > | most of the effect in the craptacular colors provided by the > > > > | initial VGA framebuffer.... me, I'm neutral. I don't reboot enough > > > > | for that image to be relevant. > > > > > > > > send me the SVG of the logo and i'll try to make a kernel logo that > > > > tries to resemble the 24bit one. i did so for the last. > > > > > > > > the VGA framebuffer has a limited ammoutn of colours, you have to > > > > dither them to make them look nice. > > > > > > > > arend we having also a black/white version that looks fine? and also a > > > > grey version? > > > > > > Does this help? http://www.cinderwick.ca/archer/ I didn't look too > > > hard. There may be svg on there. > > > > > > If not I cc'd Thayer on here 8) > > > > If my opinion counts, and if a logo must be used (*grumble*) then I > > would definitely prefer it to be 100% white. Personally, I don't see a > > need for graphical icons in the framebuffer, but if they're going to be > > used, it should be as subtle as possible. > > > > All of the new logos are now available at http://www.archlinux.org/art/, > > including an all-white version. > > http://www.archlinux.org/logos/archlinux-official-white.svg > > My eyes! The goggles do nothing! I can't see!
How do i shot goggles?
