3 ms·

Apparently I'm in the minority preferring the flame logo. I mean, it's not great, but it's considerably more polished and attractive than any of the other opti

Apparently I'm in the minority preferring the flame logo. I mean, it's not great, but it's considerably more polished and attractive than any of the other options IMO. (Not that a re-brand is necessary at all...) The flame makes sense, and has a subtle tie-in with Firefox. Instead apparently they're going to go with a geek pun that makes the name difficult to read? And the majority of people prefer this option?

dbrgn 10y ago
I agree. Initially I didn't see that there are 4 different proposals and was quite happy with the flame. Then I scrolled down and couldn't believe my eyes...
emerongi 10y ago
Yes. The flame has character at least. It definitely needs work, as it looks weird right now, but the other ones are pretty bad.
- type0 10y ago
  To me it doesn't look like flame at all. Flame logo of Bunsen Labs Linux distro [1] on the other hand looks like flame and it looks good. https://www.bunsenlabs.org/ https://www.bunsenlabs.org/
- astrodust 10y ago
  It "needs work" like a person hit by a bus, thrown off a cliff, half drowned, and then during the rescue was accidentally set on fire needs medical attention.
matt4077 10y ago
It's insane. The protocol is a okay-ish as an idea, but form and colors are something from the 90ies. The flames are actually quite appealing esthetically (you have to see them a bit larger to get this "point" effect). But, more importantly: it's a fantastically versatile idea. You could flow them around any shape, animations practically write themselves. Look at the country logos: they're distinct, yet clearly a family. "Burst" is a bit meh... But I guess I could life with, considering I see the logo maybe once a week.