Yes, there are quite some logos there which aren't good looking and dont seem to mean much. But there also some logos which are quite alright for their purpose,

Yes, there are quite some logos there which aren't good looking and dont seem to mean much. But there also some logos which are quite alright for their purpose, and some which are funny, and some which are anti-logos (which I like). Take bazaar for example, http://planet.bazaar-vcs.org/images/logo.png http://planet.bazaar-vcs.org/images/logo.png. Looks alright, includes a hint on the purpose of the software, is recognisable. The DejaGnu thing is funny, given the font: https://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/images/logo.png https://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/images/logo.png The one for emacs looks modern, though I have never seen it before, certainly not in emacs (which I used some years ago): http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/*checkout*/emacs/etc/images/icons/emacs_48.png?root=emacs&revision=1.3 http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/*checkout*/emacs/etc/imag... GNU radio could look really good with a bit tweaking, it sure is recognicable. httptunnel works fine as well. Icecat is nice, and a clear nod to the firefox-logo. The mailman-logo I seriously like. And GNUparallels is a genious choice. Not all of those programs target the average enduser, not even most of them. For someone invested into a topic stuff like logos don't matter. The user-interface on the other hand... I had a few encounters with gnu-software as alternative to proprietary one, the last one I remember was with pspp. And while the logo may be shiny, the interface looked and felt very old and it was a drag to use (I managed to do what I wanted, but it wasn't easy - though I was still happy to have the option, thanks). And this is the important part of my experience with the project, not the logo.