lucene-solr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Klaas <>
Subject Re: Solr Logo thought
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:28:37 GMT
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?


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 -- -- Lucene - Solr - Nutch
> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Lukáš Vlček <>
>> To:
>> 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<
>>>> 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...
>>> ...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
>> -- 

View raw message