Superstitious Users and the FreeBSD Logo(lists.freebsd.org) |
Superstitious Users and the FreeBSD Logo(lists.freebsd.org) |
https://www.jacobelder.com/2024/01/17/director-of-toy-story-...
Previous discussion:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39030991
EDIT: While the John Lassetter version became most popular he did not draw the original. Thanks to dagmx for pointing that out and the additional background info in their comment. Also there is a Wikipedia article about the BSD daemon with even more details about the history of the logo.
Lasseter did a later (more current and iconic) revision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_Daemon?wprov=sfti1
Also John did more than just direct Toy Story.
Lasseter was one of the founders of Pixar , directed several movies, took over the chief creative officer role for both Pixar and Walt Disney Animation, before eventually leaving after several allegations of sexual impropriety. He’s now heading up Skydance Animation for Larry Elissons son, and has a contractual liability clause for any further impropriety.
One of the big “never meet your heroes” examples, along with the other Pixar co-founder, Ed Catmull who was behind the industry wide wage fixing scandal. On the flip side he also invented so many technologies that are key to computer graphics today, including the alpha channel.
Somehow Steve jobs, famously abrasive, was the least problematic of the founders.
I get that John Lasseter is probably the most well-known, but Phil Foglio and the Girl Genius team have been releasing quality work for decades.
Wonder if my children would achieve my dream to be a director. I only got it to being on stage as an assistant professor, and a deejay. And promoter also. The promoter is sort of director, but is more an executive production role really.
The oldest story I know about this "issue" was linked here (complete with a late 80s SNL joke):
http://monster-island.org/tinashumor/humor/daemon.html
The page itself is now offline, but the original was around at least as far back as 1999.
(Wayback link) https://web.archive.org/web/19991012013717/http://www.monste...
I'm very happy that someone decided to tell me at about age 12 that perhaps it's not all literally true and some people have other ideas. Some not even involving concepts like eternal damnation, original sin, an omnipotent being that turns women into salt pillars but allows for children with bone cancer to exist, and something as undefinable as an eternal soul. This ended my suffering. We have to feel bad for the people still in that system.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/09/sex-depravity-...
And it was long kept a secret.
From where I come from there is a saying which goes like ‘Good thing you pulled the small devil’ (and not the big one, implied).
Besides satanism or sheitanism as far as I know, is only objectified as the horn-y thing within a Christian (ok, Abrahamic to include Old Testament and Islam) framework. A thing with horns and a fork is not necessarily within this framework.
Should you want to look further, go take a look at Kali or potentially many other Hindu deities showing here and there as mascots. These are no entities to joke with, and humility is not part of this tradition.
So I say, leave small devil do his wonderful work and all the wonderful people who have us FreeBSD and as consequence Darwin, iOS, the TCP/IP stack and many more.
The disguise of actual Satan, should we agree is a thing, is never so obvious. And typically has more humane look, very often wears Prada.
But if you choose to use a literal hell-themed demon as your product's logo, don't be surprised if it limits your user base.
Depends how backwards people are…
I'm not hoping for 'the year of FreeBSD'. I wouldn't even want that to happen because with that comes much commercial involvement like Linux is seeing.
There's always reasons people don't choose a product and there's much much bigger ones leading people not to choose FreeBSD than this.
More soberly and at scale, one of the boring functions of real business managers is making sure that organization and product names, images, etc. are as inoffensive as possible to as many people as possible.
Back in the '90's, when I first saw the Beastie and Tux mascots, my reaction was "one of these OS's wants to be used on 1% of computers, and the other wants to be used on 99% of computers".
Many years ago, I was working in some Islamic countries where getting literature through customs was very hit and miss, depending on the religious sensibilities of the inspecting agent. I actually called the FreeBSD office and explained to someone that it would make my life easier if I could get copies of their material without their devil logo. The person I talked to was completely unsympathetic. "Just explain to them that it's a daemon, not a demon."
[1] E.g. https://i.redd.it/ha7w5438mq031.jpg
2 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41818595
>>1. Change the logo from a demon to something else. (no matter if it is a play on the word "deamon", it is repulsive to many of the 2.4 billion Christians that can be potential users of FreeBSD)
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2011-Novemb...
Comment: cats are also horned devils but they seem to be universally accepted anyway
Also, somehow I got the feeling that this hotel wasn't seriously going to lose business over the mascot. A 'long term guest' that is offended by something as innocent as a picture sure sounds to me like someone just trying get out of some obligation.
The etymology of “daemon” in the computer sense is Maxwell’s Daemon, a thought experiment involving a mischievous demon.
Even to an above average intelligence person, that’s a lot of explaining.
Most pre-modern peoples believed in demons, and most people believe images have power.
This seems like a violation of the best practices of logo design.
That being said, while the etymology of the term may not be directly referring to the modern rendition as the "devil", doesn't the logo (red thing with horns and trident) directly reference it (as a pun on daemon/demon)?
In some sense I do _understand_ where the person in OP's story is coming from. We imbue words and images with power through collective culture (Stallman certainly has remarked on the power of a name, see [1]), and if you had placed great (negative) emotional weight behind a concept, then you would be distressed to see it in something you interact with.
Ironically I think if the actual logo ended up being the "bad taste" version Wikipedia mentions as
>a picture of the BSD Daemon blowtorching a Solaris logo
it'd actually end up as more acceptable since it now gets framed as a narrative ("why a demon? Because who else would dare take on solaris")
[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.en.ht...
https://web.archive.org/web/20120104013009/https://monster-i...
Which reminded me of Bill Hicks:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/Manches...
Hilariously though they are paranoid about China and Chinese influence and go on about it all the time including Apple making stuff in China but have Huawei phones.
Christian literalism is absolutely moronic.
on a mascot rating puffy is easily the best imo... what could freebsd have?
any ideas?
I think we have to make a judgement call here: is there any kind of meaningful threshold we could agree upon, e.g. if 50%+1 people find a logo offensive, it has to get replaced? Or do we just ignore the crazies and get on with making the world a better place?
Or a Tardigrade, survives even space ;)
puffin would have double benefit of being better than a penguin
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=puffin&t=brave&iar=images&iax=imag...
The term was coined a hundred years ago. Every generation has a different version of the moral scare that will corrupt the children and needs urgent policing. The policing is always about controlling other people's behaviour (rather than, for example, educating the children).
Brilliant (≧▽≦)
> I just got a call from the owner of a hotel for which we provide hotspot service.... The owner could make no headway by explaining that the besneakered mascot was a cartoon character and was a daemon, not the Devil. And she feared upsetting the guest even more if she said that large portions of the same software are inside every Mac and iPad.
What "owner of a hotel," 1) knows this much about BSD to explain to a random guest and 2) outsources their wifi hotpot service? Then everyone, owner and guest starts calling the service provider about controversy, instead of the guest relocating to other hotel in the area.
I think the hotel guest was right to complain, and in my understanding of the Bible as a Christian I would say it is appropriate to refuse to do business with someone using such images, but also the image does not have any 'power'. That is, it is potentially immoral to associate with it, but the image shouldn't be 'scary' to any Christian, it's just a picture.
I think if we're going for something as 'neutral' as possible, I'd pick something like a logo of planet earth. But then you'd have the flat-earthers up in arms...
or ants could represent impressive engineering and ability to symbiotically exist with other creatures like aphids, caterpillars, and even a tree in the rain forest that gives them sap and they defend it. maybe a specific kind of ant could be iconic
There are people - often religious - who have a funny definition of "welcoming" which comes perilously close to "either believe as I do, or at least have the decency to pretend that you do in public."
Shucks to that. The guest is demanding that others sacrifice their own integrity to stroke her ego, and placate her obviously fragile beliefs. It is not the job of everyone else in the world to suspend their beliefs to sustain yours. We have a word for such a demand. It's intolerance.
Of course, most religious people are nothing like this (shout out to you, the lovely ones!), and some irreligious people are exactly like this, but intolerance is a trait that does naturally correlate with all-encompassing systems of belief.
If you have a business called "666 Flowers and Cakes" then a lot of Christians won't go there, and some might confront you about it. This isn't demanding or controlling thought, it's just freedom of association.
Nobody's forcing FreeBSD to do anything, but I'm pointing out the logo is at odds with their code of conduct.
The woman in story also seemed to go further and make claims about abuse, which is obviously nonsense and goes too far.
But no, you're not going to be welcoming to religious people by branding with things associated with evil in that religion.
Pretty much everyone has those sort of rules, and they have changed and evolved over time. Societies converge on a set and then find anyone who has a different set grating, because "muh morals", but if you're self-aware enough you'd realise that whether those rules are predicated on spirituality or something else is irrelevant to how it ends up "working" in practice.
Actually, the fact that you're expressing this dissent is showcasing your own tendency to enforce such rules.
When you use the term "religion" here, are you referring to an immutable set of 'official' religions? If so, which religions are in the set? If it's not immutable, how does a religion get added to the set? If it's not a closed set, would you be willing to cease using or promoting anything that has a logo on that offends my religion?
It's maybe a clever tactic to keep religious extremists away.
>as a Christian I would say it is appropriate to refuse to do business with someone using such images
Send from a Iphone ;)
Or a clever tactic to reduce diversity, because many diverse countries of the world are full of people who would be uncomfortable or wouldn't want to associate with such images, because of their culture and religion.
> Send from a Iphone ;)
Sent from Android, but besides the point. I've used FreeBSD and have tried to make it work for me. Unfortunately because of the logo I can't actually use it in general. For instance I wouldn't be comfortable using it with the church website I help maintain. I'm sure this is all just superstitious nonsense to you, but in truth this is part of my religion. Believing in the supernatural and sin is not 'extreme', unless you think Christianity in general is extreme.
I'm not stopping you from being anti religious, or anti Christian. I don't it's good, but I think it would be wrong to force you to not be. But FreeBSD claims to abide by a code of welcoming all people regardless of religion, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy here.
Skydance and Annapurna
Probably the free logo with the most awarded talents behind it.
If only that priest had intervened in the 1990s, when I began to contemplate installing BSD instead of my father's Windows.
"I just got a call from the owner of a hotel..."
The story is probably all true, even though it does have a bit of that "Elderly man set cruise control on at their RV then got up to make a sandwich" urban myth/chain letter vibe to it.
If you've ever done tech support you know this call is all too real.
There's a horrendous double standard around religion in our society, whereby religious people demanding things of others is always some beautiful instance of protected religious self expression, but any obligation on religious people to tolerate others is a grievous violation of their religious liberty.
It is infeasible to suggest that I must check with every fringe religious movement before I name things, or choose mascots. But worse, it's intolerant. I have the right to my own beliefs, and to act and speak in accordance with those beliefs. It is no one's business but mine if I decide to open a shop called "Lucifer's Lamps & Light Fixtures".
Tolerance does not consist in pretending to all think alike, it requires genuine acceptance that others believe and speak differently, and that that's OK.
Christians sure do seem to get an awful lot of leeway to 'confront' others, and it never seems to work the other way.
Not forcing, but certainly 'trying to control'.
> And you don't need to agree with someone's ethics systems to tolerate them.
Agreed!
Okay but it's not, because they are STILL welcoming to ALL religions and they're not telling you what to believe in.
This is the trouble with religion. Since they're predicated on a belief of mission and saviorship, a neutral or disregard position is interpreted as opposition. This is not the case! Simply using a logo which looks like a demon is not opposition to any religion - because you can still be that religion and use the software.
We see this time and time and time again. Not bending over backwards to one particular religion is not opposition. In the vast, vast majority of religion such a symbol is not seen as offensive. Often times with religion simply acknowledging secularism or other religions is interpreted as offense. This makes religious tolerance virtually impossible, because in order to make any arbitrary religion happy you have to explicitly make all other religions unhappy.
This is why the correct way to tolerate religion is to simply pretend it doesn't exist. Well, if Abrahamic religions do not exist then the logo cannot be offensive.
If you have doubts this is the most correct way to approach religious tolerance I recommend looking into some landmark Supreme Court cases about the establishment clause, particularly in schools. The justices are good at explaining why this is the approach often taken.
It's not really neutral though, it's specifically from the outset designed to depict something evil in the culture of the religion. The current more abstract logo could just as easily looks like traits of Satan as a random demon. And I don't believe this is an attack on Christianity or Christians, or designed to exclude Christians. I don't imagine it bothers most Christians.
But this is something certain Christians will be put off by, and find unwelcoming, for religious reasons. So hence this is at odds with the code of conduct in my opinion.
And really the whole thread has just confirmed this, I've been just short of accused of being an extremist, and had many complaints about my religion, just for pointing this out.
I think one solution is just not to have codes of conduct, it seems to breed this kind of discussion and vitriol. And apparently there's always favourite religions, ethnicities, etc.; different according to who you ask. And also maybe avoid using religious-themed art in your logo if you want to avoid potential for religious discussion. The people behind the logo probably considered and decided this doesn't matter a long time ago, and personally I respect their decision: but it does mean that it will exclude some people.
No, you interpret it as such. But to the vast majority of religions, it's not viewed as evil, and to secular people it's not evil either. It's just a play on the term daemon.
> So hence this is at odds with the code of conduct in my opinion
No, because as soon as you make organization changes to appease Christians than the Muslims will say "Wait wait wait - you're appeasing Christians and not us? But we are the one true religion!" And so now, you no longer have tolerance.
That's why the only way to achieve true tolerance of religion is to pretend all religions don't exist. Even acknowledging one can be, and often is, interpreted as favoritism or endorsement. Every religion thinks they're the "One True" one.
But if religions don't exist then the daemon isn't offensive. So there you go, religious tolerance.
> religious-themed art
Frankly I don't think Christianity, or any religion, have sole proprietorship over a cute little daemon logo. I can arbitrarily relate many things to religion. For example, there's water in the Bible. Is therefore including water at your events an example of appealing to religion? No. You do not own demons and more so than the LGBT owns rainbows. There's a thing that exists in popular culture and they're secular, largely. Also asking religious people what is and is not secular is just a recipe for disaster overall. They have a very strong incentive to swallow up a ton of stuff.
This is a difficult one to judge because, while the logo may keep some extremists away which, I agree, would reduce diversity, a policy of kowtowing to such extremists may keep more open-minded people away instead.
I am a catholic, but thanks for the "anti Christian" label, you see that's what i mean with extremism ;)
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius seems pretty extreme.
Apocryphal quotes aside there's a well documented long history of intolerance of core cannon heresy.
>Apocryphal quotes aside there's a well documented long history of intolerance of core cannon heresy.
Like with every single religion right?
> Like with every single religion right?
Eh, dunno about that, there's a lot of variation - off hand I don't think the Baháʼí engaged in many pograms or inquisitions .. other religions have notably dabbled in many such things.
That itself is a question of ethics, that I don't think you need to agree with to be able to be tolerant. You can tolerate people without thinking it's "OK" for people to believe things you think are wrong to believe.
One is under no obligation to tolerate racism, for example. One may choose to be a friend to a racist in the hopes of being a positive influence, but this may be difficult for a person to manage without sacrificing their integrity. It must not be expected or mandatory. (And certainly not for members of the race being vilified.)
Similarly, a gay man may choose to be a friend to bigoted religious person in the hopes of opening their eyes to love, but this requires self-abasement of a kind that must not be expected and mandatory.
It's hard to figure out a system of tolerance for the intolerant, and it's not at all clear why they should get the privilege of being intolerant of others, and demand tolerance of themselves. This is effectively what we end up with in practice around religion, though.
