True.
----- Original Message ---- > From: Mike Klaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > Sent: Friday, August 8, 2008 1:28:37 PM > Subject: Re: Solr Logo thought > > To me, the release timing doesn't much affect what logo we decided to > use or when to adopt it. Surely the most visible, important location > for the logo is on the website, that we can replace at any time? > > -Mike > > On 8-Aug-08, at 7:30 AM, Otis Gospodnetic wrote: > > > I think you are right about favicon and I look forward to your > > logos. Not sure how closely you follow solr lists, but the 1.3 > > release is planned for the 18th and if people spot issues with 1.3, > > there will be 1.3.1 after that. So these are some time frames if > > you want to try getting the logs in for 1.3 or 1.3.1 > > > > Thanks for the help! > > > > Otis > > -- > > Sematext -- http://sematext.com/ -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > >> From: Lukáš Vlček > >> To: solr-user@lucene.apache.org > >> Sent: Friday, August 8, 2008 3:25:33 AM > >> Subject: Re: Solr Logo thought > >> > >> Hoss, > >> > >> thanks for comprehensive history tour. > >> > >> As for the sun motive I like it and think it is a strong one > >> (strong enough > >> to be the only leading motive in the logo) but I didn't want to > >> insist on it > >> without knowing that the community calls for it (especially I like > >> to idea > >> that the logo or favicon should evoke the feeling that you are > >> looking into > >> the sun). > >> > >> As for the favicon debate I think that it is a bit overstated (IMHO). > >> Favicon is important but I don't think that whole logo must be done > >> in a > >> such way that it can be directly scaled down to favicon size without > >> significant visual appearance attractivity loss. For example Yahoo! > >> uses > >> just Y! for favicon, Google uses g (G formerly) and Solr uses just > >> gradient > >> box (which is a nice idea I think). So for me the *direct > >> compatibility* of > >> a new logo with favicon is not critical as long as that are other > >> options > >> for favicon provided. > >> > >> I already have some ideas about Solr logo and I will try to put > >> drafts down > >> so that response/critics can be collected. Also it would be > >> interesting if > >> this could provoke other designers for collaboration (aren't we > >> talking > >> about open source project? :-) > >> > >> Regards, > >> Lukas > >> > >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:48 AM, Chris Hostetter wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> : I would like to give it a shot. Are there any solr logo success > >>> : criteria/requirements? Any hints or suggestions from community is > >>> welcomed. > >>> : Just close your eyes, start dreaming and send my couple of words > >>> about > >>> what > >>> : you see... I am all ears. > >>> > >>> Other people who care more about the logo have already given lots > >>> of good > >>> feedback on things that should be kept in mind ... the only one i > >>> would > >>> question is that the logo need to look good at favicon sizes ... > >>> that > >>> tends to be really limiting. > >>> > >>> Even if the primary logo doesn't look good at favicon sizes (or in > >>> B&W) > >>> the important thing is that a cohesive "brand" can be established > >>> arround > >>> a logo (take for instance the apache feather with is long and > >>> horizontal, > >>> but can be rotated to fit diagnoally in a square favicon, or the > >>> existing > >>> Solr favicon which has thesame color palate as the Solr Logo and > >>> evokes > >>> the idea that you are looking into the sun). What a "Powered By" > >>> logo > >>> would look like is also something to keep in mind. > >>> > >>> : Also I found that the wiki mentions some > >>> : genesis< > >>> > http://wiki.apache.org/solr/FAQ#head-6d74c2bb4171b0908a4695cbb24acd368a29dc06 > >>>> of > >>> : Solar/Solr technology but still I don't understand if the > >>> relation to > >>> : sun > >>> : is intentional or coincidence. > >>> > >>> A little of both. > >>> > >>> As yonik mentioned once upon a time... > >>> http://markmail.org/message/sgxaz5nv5mapzw34 ...CNET had an > >>> interal product called "ATOMICS" which stood for "Apache TO MySQL > >>> In CNET > >>> Search" (it was a made up acronym to support the fact that people > >>> wanted > >>> to be able to say apps that used it were "Atomic powered"). When > >>> it was > >>> decided that there should be a Lucene based alternative, someone > >>> got the > >>> idea that it should be named "SOLAR" so you could have "Solar > >>> Powered" > >>> applications instead of using "ATOMICS" (CNET has a long history > >>> of puns > >>> in internal product/project acronyms) and it was backronymed to be > >>> "Searching On Lucene And Resin". > >>> > >>> When it cam time to open source "SOLAR" we had to change the name: > >>> 1) we > >>> couldn't have an acronym with "Resin" in it because it's a > >>> commercial > >>> product (and besides, Solr works just find with any servlet > >>> container); > >>> 2) there was some legal issue with the word "Solar" ... i don't > >>> remember > >>> exactly what, it might have been an existing trademark. I > >>> suggested we > >>> just drop the "A" and make the R stand for Replication (or maybe > >>> someone > >>> else had already suggested "Solr" and I just suggested what the R > >>> could be > >>> for -- i don't remember). Ultimately "Solr" was the final decision, > >>> mainly because it was short, passed legal approval, and allowed us > >>> to keep > >>> pronouncing it the same way in conversation -- but we droped the > >>> kludgy acronym. > >>> > >>> So yes: the relation tothe sun was intentional, but not for any good > >>> reason. Personally, I've always had a fondness for saying > >>> something is > >>> "Solr Powered" when people ask ... so I do think it would be nice to > >>> maintain a Sun motif. > >>> > >>> > >>> -Hoss > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> http://blog.lukas-vlcek.com/ > >
