Boost logo

Boost :

From: Joel de Guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-18 09:01:06

Tarjei Knapstad wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 07:10, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>christopher diggins wrote:
>>>From: "Tarjei Knapstad" <tarjei.knapstad_at_[hidden]>
>>>To: "Boost-dev" <boost_at_[hidden]>
>>>>The rest of the suggestions I simply don't like at all :P (and most
>>>>are close to impossible to iconify in any way that links the logo
>>>>and the icon and doesn't make the latter look butt ugly).
>>>At least the submitters have contributed something. If you are going
>>>to be rude, then I would suggest keeping your opinions to yourself.
>>>I for one think that the huge selection of logos to choose from is
>>>wonderful. We are very lucky to have people willing to take the time
>>>to design so many logos so that we can choose the best one. My
>>>personal thanks to each and every logo submitter.
>>I was going to say I didn't find the original post rude, but then I realized I
>>stopped reading before I got to the 'butt ugly' part.
>>Yes, rude indeed!
> Sorry guys, I didn't mean to be rude at all (I see how it may read to
> people now though).
> I was not referring to the logos themselves (generally they are of good
> quality, and I fully respect the work people have put into them), but
> rather how it would look if you tried to squash them into an icon.
> Sorry again, no offense intended.

Please be reminded that being able to iconify the logo is not
a requirement. It is unfair to change the requirements midstream.
Please be kind. I agree with Christopher Diggins. I'm also impressed
by the wide selection. For that, we should be thankful to those
who took the trouble twiddling pixels and vectors.


Joel de Guzman

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at