Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

[Schanzenbach, Martin]

> On 26. Jan 2018, at 19:31, carlo von lynX <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> Martin, we are the minority of people who accepted
> the gnu on the web...
You have anything to back that claim?

> maybe we want to extend our
> audience to the people that think that such a home-
> grown logo doesn't stand for professionality?
Please put both logos next to each other and reconsider this statement.
Of course, this is also a matter of taste and I really do not want to argue 
about this at all... but (hah!):
The current GNUnet logo is ok. Not great, but ok. It could definitively be 
improved.
To to so we would need a professional designer (and I really mean that. 
Professional. Not as in paid, but in being a professional designer).
Just as I probably would not want a professional designer to code in GNUnet 
(unless also a professional coder) I would not want a coder to create the 
logos. I do not know who created the current logo but considering our limited 
resources in this regard it is actually quite good.

> Same
> goes for the terrible Taler logo? Let Amirouche'
> creativity go wild, it is going in a totally useful
> direction!
Afaik the Taler logo already gets an update (and I really like the new one, 
hope I am not spoilering things..).
Just by looking at it I am pretty sure it was done professionally.
Now, this does not mean that amirouche cannot create the logos. Or anybody else 
for that matter.
Feel free. But doing this stuff is not trivial. I envy people who can create 
beautiful icons/brand logos.
Who created the Guix logo btw? It looks really nice.

@Amirouche: Please do not take this the wrong way. Keep up the work and go 
create ;)

> 
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 06:46:14PM +0100, t3sserakt wrote:
>> By the way, is it a stupid idea to let the endpoint of
>> a cadet path be not the endpoint of user communication,
>> to protect meta data? Maybe this is easier to accomplish
>> than onion routing, or an additional protection together
>> with OR.
> 
> That is actually the simple way to implement OR,
> just make CADET connections between the relays
> and therefore obfuscate the final endpoints.
> The reason we don't do that yet is because we
> don't have a strategy to decide which relays are
> trustworthy - or maybe, if rps is functional, we
> now have one.
> 
> 
> --
>  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
>         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
>          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
>         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GNUnet-developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnunet-developers

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP