Funny ...
;D

That happens only to me if I have turned down javascript. Any chance you are using firefox with the no-script or a similar extension

Nope, not firefox, no extension.

Ups, no, it is not the javascript per se. But if I go to the address line and confirm the URL with <return> it's showing up. Don't know why.

As you correctly said Slackware contains all source and build scripts on the disc which is openness incarnate and this is a great credit to the distro. This wasn't what I was referring to by my open/closed comment.

I was referring to the fact that Slacware decisions/discussions are taken behind closed doors in private. As Slackware's quality attests to, this obviously works well for the Slackware team, however it does leave the user base a little out of the loop. Yes, I'm sure Pat and the team are open to suggestions and I could email them a suggestion if I could justify to myself that it was of sufficient worth to take up their time with. However, this would still be a closed communication channel between myself and Pat/the team member, and no one else would be aware of or able to contribute further to that discussion. This is the weakness behind the closed approach, however, 'design by open comity' has just as many problems and can often result in a much worse end product. This was all I meant when I used the word 'closed'. I did not intend it to be taken negatively as any sort of an attack.

Yep, if I'd realised what a shit-storm was going to be unleashed, then I'd have worded it exactly like that. Or more likely, not posted at all.

I think I'll go back to forum lurking. It's safer.

Not all that odd, it's hotlink protection. It prevents other sites from taking your images by checking the HTTP referrer. It either has to be blank (what you get going direct) or from the site in question. If you go with a referrer of linuxquestions.org (what you get following the link) the protection kicks in.

I think I know why, especially if that's one of your best...

The new Slackware logo is FRESH and WITTY. SIMPLE, but SMART. Just like Slackware.

Which I happen to like very much.
A matter of opinion...

rofl.. you sound like a fashion television commercial. At least you didn't say breezy beautiful....

The linked logo is nice but I would still rather keep the old one. I think black/white is the way to go. I made the new logo my desktop background in the hopes of getting use to it... but I just keep reading slackwars... as does each person I show??? bah

Hmm, that's weird, oh well, just go to my main site it's there. There's also the btanaka one that I like, I didn't make that one, but it's cool.

It's true, I'm not a very good artist, but from what I see on the SW propaganda page, I think mine is quite acceptable if not good compared to many on there.

Simple? :}

It's convoluted and ugly ... the fact that it reads
the same when I stand on my head makes it nerdy, and
that's about all the credit it gets :D

is this thread dead enough yet for me to start a poll :P rofl

A poll would show how many people bothered, or happened, to find it
and how many cared enough to vote. Depending upon what he thinks,
it might give Pat a feel for how Slackers at LQ view the new logo. He
is also a member of LQ, and has read some threads.

As for this rambling thread, though I've not read it all, there seems to
be a large majority of Slackers who dislike the new logo.

As has been pointed out by a couple of members of the Slackware
core team, Slackware is a monocracy (government by a single person),
as opposed to say Debian, which is a democracy (rule of the majority).
So Pat has earned the right to say, "The buck stops here!" And in my
opinion, that's a major reason Slack remains stable and strong.

For my particular OS needs, the monocracy is far better than democracy.
Debian proved that to me, when in the Fall of 2003 with it as my OS, I
was interested in trying other de/wm than the default Window Maker. At
the time I was running the testing version, and the developers in this
democracy could not agree on libs for KDE. Therefore, KDE was available
only in the Woody branch. Right, who wants a Woody? The software at the
time was a couple of years old. For me to even try KDE, it was necessary
to take my entire OS back to the Woody branch, and I wasn't interested
in doing that. This very problem ran me straight to Slackware, and it's
wonderful monocracy.

As for the logo, am I also entitled to an opinion?

When I was first notified about it, and looked at it, my initial reaction
was, "What in the world is Pat thinking? Is he having some mid-life crisis?"

After the version with the GIMP error has been replaced, and I've looked at
the logo quite a number of times (standing on my feet and sitting on my butt),
my opinion is the same.

IMHO the Slackware logo looks very unprofessional, and like some childish fad.

This week I sent a business proposal to a major computer hardware vendor, in
which I detailed our work here with open source software. In the proposal, he
was provided a link to the Slackware website. As I checked my email, and then
clicked on the Slackware link, I cringed. For a minute I started to remove the
link, so that he didn't see the logo, and instead just provide a whole lot of
information about Slackware. But, I didn't. Whether Pat changes it, or has
a logo that I like or not, I'm sticking with Slackware and supporting him!
Use Slackware for two months, and it will justify itself.

I grew up in the graphic design and printing business, and know that our first
impression of most businesses comes from their logo. That is the purpose of a
logo (which is usually more than or not just text), to give the customer a nice
visual image of your business. It does not look simple, professional, and more
importantly, reflective of the Slackware philosophy to me.

Given the subject, it's hard to control myself, but I'll try. Personally, I could live with the current logo as I don't use Slackware because of the logo. However, Patrick needs to assess why he's still releasing Slackware. Has his motive changed over the years since its inception? Was Slackware meant simply as a part time endeavor, hence the name? If that motive remains, then a more informal logo is probably acceptable. Is Slackware today meant as the prime mechanism for earning a living? If so, then maybe a more formal logo would be appropriate. A contest of designing a new logo would likely generate a lot of interest. As a bonus, the contest could have categories, e.g. formal and informal, and Slackware would assume the rights to those submitted designs for future use *.

* Possible legal issues.

Eh??? I would never dream of giving up Slackware because of the new logo. But if I was Patrick V., and reading all this negative criticism, I would seriously contemplate reverting to the old logo, which suited the image of Slackware better.