Mo's proposed fedora atomic logo

Matthew Miller mattdm at fedoraproject.org
Tue Sep 15 20:37:47 UTC 2015


On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 09:54:39PM +0200, Haïkel wrote:
> But if the council allows us to do so, I'd like to keep the colored logo
> for Fedora Cloud as we don't want to give the impression that it's not an
> official product or less supported that it actually is.

We have a lot of official Fedora -- let's avoid the word "product" here
just for unambiguity -- "things-we-produce" which get the
less-prominent logo, including the release-blocking KDE spin. These
aren't less _Fedora_ than Cloud / Server / Workstation are today —
they're just not in the "Editions" bucket.

The color vs. gray representation comes from the Design team, not the
Council. If cloud WG wants to ask the Council to have four editions,
Workstation / Server / Cloud / Atomic, rather than pivoting to
Workstation / Server / Atomic.... well, I'm not opposed to the
_request_ but do obviously have an opinion.

Restating that opinion for the record: we worked on the Editions (née
Products) proposal for a long time, coming from a lot of different
possible directions, and we settled on asking for Editions which aim
for relatively narrow use cases with specific user targets, with the
goal of growing Fedora in new ways. Even though all of our work on the
Cloud Base image has been awesome (and I hope useful to people), it
never really fit that, especially without some of the things like SCLs
for language stacks that would have provided a good story. So, some 80%
of my enthusiasm for Fedora Atomic comes simply because it *does* fit
that picture so well. (That I also think it's a major step in OS
evolution is just... icing on the cake.)

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm at fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader


More information about the cloud mailing list