[doesn't want a logo that attacks *bsd nor microsoft - I agree 100%]
>My vote goes for a simple, professionally done and easily recognizable
>symbol. (I know, it isn't easy.) Isn't that what a logo is all about, a
>simple symbol done with style, which immediately makes the viewer think of
>the product it symbolizes?
Absolutely. If you look at many of the logos that have been suggested
for the 2.0 logo competition (see the suggestions at
http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~jeremiah/linux-pix/linux-logo.html), most
of these aren't logos - they are *pictures* that look nice on a
computer screen, but are hopeless as a logo. If something is to be
a useful logo, a minimum requirement must be that it looks good
*on paper*, not only on a monitor.
My personal favorite among the suggestions is the Philipp Reissner's
"mylogo.jpg" - a simple "Linux" with "Revision 2.0" above it, written
in a nicely colored but not overdone way. I will be using it for the
LPP press release for Linux 2.0 here in Denmark.