> Logos are important. If the logo is unprofessional (I am not actually
> casting an opinion, I don't use PgAdmin) then people are going to think
> it is an unprofessional app.
Our logo is already far above average for both free software and the
database industry. Oracle, the most lucrative DB company, has an ugly
logo which doesn't lend itself to any kind of derivatives or product
logos; the other vendors are generally worse.
Our graphic is recognizable, easy to reproduce in a variety of sizes,
lends itself to both product and user group variants, applies well to
merchandise, and is an attractive shade of blue which works well for
clothing. The Japanese turtle is slightly more attractive but that
animal has negative associations for Americans.
I think the text portion of our logo could use some typography work (or
we could just steal JPUG's verions) but frankly even that is better than
the typography for Oracle, Ingres, or EnterpriseDB.
Someone mentioned the Java logo as an example of a good logo. JUGS as a
rule *hate* the java logo; it's tightly licensed, impersonal, and
doesn't lend itself to createing user group variants. That's why
there's been a number of attempts to create person/animal logos like
Jack, Juggy and that triangle thing for the user groups.
So, could we have a better logo? Maybe. Is our logo even 1% as
significant as the other aspects of our weak marketing? No.
If people have free time and are looking to improve our marketing, how
about updating the text in postgresql.org/about?
BTW, Scott, this has nothing to do with fixing the grainyness of the
pgadmin icon, which is a simple bug-fix for the pgadmin project, and
thanks for taking a stab at it!
--Josh Berkus