New logos acquired

No decision was taken as to whether we should move to a new logo, improve the one we already have or keep our existing logo just the way it is. What we’re planning is an overall refreshing new look for our websites, including the main website, the blog, the forums and the community website. We’ll organise contests and seek the best look and feel for our websites in the near future, but before we do that, it’s important we know what we want from our logo going forward. With this in mind, we organised a contest on our logo.

An artists called Vast improved our current logo by adding contrast to it, more depth and a silver look:

Click on the picture to make it bigger

We were also impressed by Lazar Bogicevic, who designed a logo which retains our identity and is more workable/handy for branding than our current one:

Click on the picture to make it bigger

Our logo is our identity and it’s not easy to change. A long process and reflection is ongoing about this as to whether and when we should switch and/or improve our logo. We acquired the copyright for both designs.


  1. Wow, I really like the second one 🙂
    I would really like to see that one as the new logo for linux mint

  2. I like the second one (Bogicevic’s), apart from the “LM” font. I think he should work on it to make the two letters more readable. But I like it, looks more modern than ther current one while reminding it.

  3. I agree with Giorgio. I think the new logo has to remember closely the old one, unless linux mint is going to change radically its purpose/features.

  4. me too a fan of second one. I would like to see linux mint somehow incorporated in such a pattern on the leaf. It is not apparent to me if it is already done 🙂

  5. If Mint will stick with the Ubuntu base: Dont change the logo totally and I would vote for the first one.
    If Mint decides to choose NEW ways I would definitely choose the second one!!


  6. Love the artwork in #1. #2, though, looks like a winner, as it’s fresher, leafier, and more recognizable, I should think.

  7. The second piece of logo is interesting although ‘lm’ font could look more like it is suggesting ‘lm’ like Giorgio said.

    Also the logos should look good in monochrome.

  8. I know we’re not voting yet, but I agree with some of the previous comments that said the proposed logo should resemble the current logo, therefore I’d go with the first one. Not that the second one is without merit (it’s great!), but I think it’s too much of a departure from the current state.


  9. the first one is ok but it dosent have the visual impact of the second. the second is the stronger logo, but maybe it could be refined a little more?

  10. The first one is close to the original logo and it would be desirable.
    Moving away from the original one would pose problems of identity.

  11. It should be as close to the existing one as possible – that’s the “trademark” of Mint. That ‘readily-identified-logo is what is Mint.

    you wouldn’t see M$ changing it’s ‘butterfly logo’ would you ??.

    It’s Mint Logo – that we are talking about, folks.

    BTW:- and the colour GREEN !.

  12. The first one was and still rubbish, I never liked it. Specially because of the slogan below, it’s gives really a look rookie and not professional at all for a distro like Mint.

  13. I like the first logo, it looks like a nice refresh of the old one. I don’t like the lettering in the leaf on the second one. The first one would better retain product recognition.

  14. I guess it’s just me, but I find all these extra embossed/gradient shiny bits just seem a bit… gimmicky, tacky, cheap… far from an improvement, it just seems like overkill.

    However, the second one appears to work it, for some reason. Especially given that it has an option of both a green or silver border, which gives it better versatility for layouts/backgrounds.

    I think the second one would be the clear winner, if it still has the old “LM”, which would better avoid the identity problems (and be more legible.)

  15. From the second one glows something like nobless. It’d give your Linux new style, depth and seriousness… 😉 It’s just an improvement forward to next level… 🙂

  16. +100 for the second. the shapes might seem odd at first, but to me it seems it could be used to implement DE specific logos.

  17. It is important that the logo be unique and consistent so that Linux Mint’s logo can be easily identified from amongst 100’s of different distros. The font can be experimented with easily.
    Logo 1 is a progressive enhancement of the current logo. The ‘L’ and ‘m’ can be easily identified from the logo itself. This is not possible from the 2nd logo. Logo2 is too awkward, with the outer shape devoted to Mint’s current logo, while the inner lettering is abstract.
    I vote for Logo1.

  18. From an artist’s perspective the first has a stronger corporate identity or Brand.While the second may be a better design it’s appeal is more aesthetic and it is less identifiable, in short the first says Mint without having to spell out Linux while the latter demands it.

  19. I vote for first.
    It is easier to read and has good communication.

    The second simply floats in the air and not understood by most people who know nothing about Linux Mint.
    Thus, we can modernize the first or give us more examples of the logo:)

    Good luck 🙂

  20. From an artist’s perspective the first has a stronger corporate identity or Brand.While the second may be a better design it’s appeal is more aesthetic and it is less identifiable, in short the first says Mint without having to spell out Linux while the latter demands it. The second is simply “pretty.”I agree with Kage, though, the New Logo design needs to reflect any new direction for the software and any competition input should inform people of that.Are you sticking with Ubuntu, emphasising Gnome or Unity or going completely Debian? You appear to be making an Identity Crisis for yourself and for no reason.A new Logo won’t help you define your direction, to the contrary it is the new direction which should define the new Logo.
    I personally don’t understand why you are changing anything before you know where you are going.In the final analysis-” If it aint broke, don’t fix it!

  21. The first one has more strength, structure and is more solid in it’s definition. The second one is light and easily forgotten.

  22. My vote goes to the first one.

    I don’t like that the second one is so different from the old one.

  23. I like the first one the best, because it looks more like the current logo so as not to lose the identity of the distro, it looks very clean and smart.

    I also like the second logo, but, like some other posts have mentioned the “LM” in the logo doesn’t look like an L or M, if this was improved and Linux Mint went to an all Debian base, this could make a case for a bold new look to signify change in the distro.


  24. Be careful with the concept of “a fresh look”. Successful companies keep good brands for _decades_ because the know that re-establishing a brand takes a long time. Do not lightly forego the current brand for no reason other than “we feel like doing something that really adds no value”.

    Do be careful with glossy icons, logos, etc. In far too many cases, the gloss/shine is overdone and makes the artwork MORE difficult to look at. The worst examples are buttons/title bars with strong gradients. Strong gradients really make overlaid text hard to read–a light-colored font is hard to read against the light part of the gradient and a dark-colored font is hard to read against the dark part of the gradient.

  25. The first logo is still a Linux Mint Logo, no explanation required. The second logo reminds me that branding is important and needs continuity and instantaneous recognition, so that when you see the logo you understand it by association without asking who, what, where, why, etc., and with out the explicit words “Linux Mint” logo 2 has none of these qualities.
    Same problem as the “new” Pepsi Logo.

  26. I don’t like the first one. It’s too much in my opinion…

    I’m a fan of the second one. If you have to change your logo, choose that one. But I would also say, that such a change should come with another change.

    Perhaps like focussing on LMDE? 😀

  27. I agree with the remarks that the first design is more recognizable (though I like the second a lot). My only criticism is that the “from freedom came elegance” on the first design looks a bit cramped. The space between the words is to close to the space between the letters.

  28. @Сергей,

    that one is indeed impressive. Personally I agree to statements above that it should be at least no complete change of identity and recognition.


  29. I prefer the symbol in the first one and the font in the second. personally i think it would be better to drop linux and just call the distro mint!

  30. Logo (LM Portion)
    – Vast is more readable. The LM is lost in the Lazar version. If it were more legible I might go for the Lazar version.

    Logo (LinuxMint Portion)
    – I like the Lazar version much better.

  31. I am bored of the first one. And since I am myself enjoying anything that changes and evolves, with the second proposition, I think it is a refresh and beautyful logo to mark the evolution of Linux Mint.

    There should be more propositions and maybe better ones (but this one is the very good start) so I think a change is welcome.

    Thank you again for this Linux distribution 🙂

  32. To me it’s #1, because I think there should be a continuity in the logo. (Maybe the thickness of the border in the “LM” should be reduced as suggested above).

    #2 has it’s charme too, but the “LM” in the leave is not readable, if you don’t know what to read. At least this has to be improved – maybe only one line between “L” an “M”?


  33. The community should pick the second one. If you want to attract more users, the second one is more “fluid” and “fresh” like a leaf (like linux). Also a brand new website based on a cms like drupal would be great with refreshing and breath taking colors. Just remind yourself what happened when ubuntu redesigned. Ubuntu is now more attractive and welcoming then the old brown.

  34. The first logo inspired heaviness, it is much too massive even though it is very well done. This may suggest that the system is a tank. The second suggests the contrary: lightness, maneuverability, modernity … It is only my point of view 😉

  35. I vote for the 1st logo for two reasons: 1) It is closer to your current logo, 2) it has a more professional look.

    If someone showed me the 2nd logo out of this context (I’m referring to the Minty logo, not the Linux Mint string), I would not have any idea it referred to Linux Mint…..

  36. Stay with the first one. LM should be a brand. A stable,Debian based distri, with the chance to add packets of the own choice sid or testing is to prefer. Good luck Funkajja

  37. +1 for the first one, but I agree that the border and font should be thinner. I think we need to preserve our brand identity, and this should apply to both LM11 and LMDE. Great work on both!

  38. Wow! Some artwork!

    What about a mix?

    I really appreciated the first text logo… with the maturated “leaf” of the second choice.

    Thank you and keep up the excellent work!

  39. First logo with leaf design like in the in the second one. But keep the “M” icon. Just lay it to some 45º degrees.

  40. Hold the “old” one or switch to the logo from Vast.
    The logo from Lazar Bogicevic is not good readable, so I dont like it much.
    Thanks for the work!

  41. I’m sorry, I respect the work of the artists who made those logos, but I don’t like any.

    I think Mint’s been losing its identity for the last two releases. Wallpapers haven’t been even closer to the beauty and elegance of previous releases, and I think these logos are going away again.

    Just take a look at Henrique Percarati Mint KDE logo, that was oh-boy! beautiful and a natural evolution, it was taken without any doubt by us (Mint KDE users) unlike these.I can see a lot of doubts and divission with these logos.

    I’m sorry, I don’t like them.

  42. I agree with Kev, the name of the distro could just be “Mint”, drop the “Linux”. More punchy that way.

    I think the first one is too messy so to say. Too many visual effects and layers, it’s not clean enough. Its more or less the old logo with some bling, so I’d rather keep the old one as is.

  43. Between the two of them, i prefer the first. Easy to recognize, keeps the continuity. The second one is very confusing; you have to dig very deep in order to find out the meaning of those lines.
    Now, regarding the first one, i totally agree with orion (#50): the text “from freedom came elegance” looks a lot cramped, there is almost no space between the words.
    My opinion is that this phrase must remain in any case. I take it that it summarizes LinuxMint’s spirit.

  44. Second, mean the new one !

    I never like the current one, so kinda amateur.
    But at last hope you will change it in new Mint 11!

  45. Needed Changes. New Mint will need introduce in more bright light.
    I think that Gnome 3 will help. And it’s good that you use him.
    You must use the new
    technology. I was very
    impressed and happy when he I
    heard the news that the Mint
    project will move regardless of
    Ubuntu. It would be a very
    good if team the Mint issued a
    separate release author
    OpenOffice. We believe in
    you 🙂 Don’t give up 😉

  46. I don’t like either of them. I would not think if either of them are bringing “new” and “fresh” look. We wouldn’t need to add flashy colours and special effects for the logo. Simple colours and elegant design would speak everything. Like someone suggested, we could dump the word “linux” and just keep “Mint”.

    However, if I have to choose between the given two, I would go for the second.

  47. Both look great! I dont really care about the logo as long as the distrobehind it keeps up this magnificant standard!

  48. The number 2 logo will remove all the Linux Mint identity. No Chance.

    The actual Linux Mint logo was refined. I vote for number 1 without

    no doubt.

  49. Altho I voted for #1, I agree with others that it can be improved…especially the tagline where spacing is too tight between words….overall, it’s a bit too cramped….I would ask the designer to revise it if that’s not too costly…

  50. the first one definitely.
    the true linux mint logo, polished and refreshed the right way.
    that’s the way to go.
    we don’t forget our roots, we improve them.

  51. I much prefer the first (Vast) logo.

    Frankly, I am sick to death of logo-designers churning out aesthetically pleasing yet meaningless squiggles that have no bearing at all on the companies they are meant to identify.

    Unless you fancy using slave- and child-labor in some disadvantaged third-world country for all your coding, you don’t really need some nebulous, geek-equivalent analog of the ‘Swoosh’.

    Take a look at the IBM logo sometime – and at the history of it. You’ll never mistake an IBM-branded product for a fishtank, or a car. In the history of the company it’s never been possible to make that mistake – and I feel quite sure that will be the case in any future foreseeable between now and the heat death of the universe.

  52. I like the metallic 3D look of the first one and the subtle “mint leaf” reference in it. Great job!!

  53. I agree with Kevin Wright (47) and billiecowie (39): Why change?

    Personally, I like the current logo just fine. If you must make a change then I suppose that option 2 is more aesthetically pleasing. Also, if a change is going to be made, why not just call it “Mint” instead of “LinuxMint”? This is common usage already.

  54. My vote is for the VAST logo. The subtle changes are very nice, with out the loss of identity.

  55. I am using mint since 9+, even till today Mint-10 has not WVDIAL in the bootable live DVD, this causes problems for the users having USB modems, but yes i know mint-KDE do include wvdial. Please add WVDIAL in Mint-11 Gnome.

    And as logo is concerned, my votes for FIRST one 🙂


  56. 2nd logo is definitely pwnzor! Perhaps it should being polished a bit more, but it rocks for sure.

  57. I was never that impressed with the current design. Is there a reason for a “leaf”? Given the two proposed, I agree with some of the previous comments:

    #2 Giorgio:
    make the two letters [“LM” in second one] more readable

    #9 Subhashish:
    Also the logos should look good in monochrome
    [What do they look like in grayscale (many shades of gray including black and white) and black & white only (two color)? This would be important, for example, in non-color printing.]

    #25 deep64blue:
    Keep the 1st one for the Ubuntu based distros and use the second one for Debian.

    #33 billiecowie:
    the second is more aesthetic [but] less identifiable
    [Definitely make the “L” of “LM” more identifiable, and you have a winner; so I guess I prefer the second with changes. Perhaps the lower/left of the leaf could identify the “L” via a different color?]

    Also, let it take time, if necessary, to get it right. Then don’t change it…for 10, 20 years…or ever…to ensure brand identification.

  58. It took me forever to make out the LM in the logo for the second one. I prefer the first, but the second would be okay if it was toned down a bit.

  59. While I like bits and pieces of both designs for different reasons, I have to agree that we don’t need to get rid of our current logo. I don’t think it’s lost its freshness at all.

    If a change is made, my preference would be to just take the *current* logo/font and maybe add a light effect to it (maybe some reflection/3d shaping like #1, but less intense, or a simple shadow like #2). Otherwise, keep the text, font, and leaf logo the same. No need to lose ourselves in unneeded art projects when we can put more effort into getting Mint 11 stable and elegant out the door.

  60. Personally I am a stick in the the mud. Currently I am running Mint 10 with the Felicia theme and background. Its good to see other optoions open but can we still have the older options available in forthcoming releases. Oh and can we have the traditional Mint Menu button back please

    I,ve been working with the distro. since Mint 3.0 Cassandra

  61. Personally, I think the current graphical logo should stay the same. I did however, like the grey Linux / green Mint of the text logo.

    I think the site would look sleek, yet calm and organized if you applied a theme visually similar to default desktop in Linux Mint 7 / 8 / 9. The charcoal grey window boarders would make great menus and footers. Treat the web site like a control panel / desktop of sorts.

    Better enabling the visitor to navigate the site would be a bonus, though I must admit it’s fairly well organized already.

  62. On a side note, please tell me that the next version of Mint won’t follow Ubuntu into defacing the default desktop by replacing Gnome / Kde with Unity. At least not as the default install. Even a choice within the installer to choose which one for the default install, defaulting to the current Gnome?

  63. I’m not too keen on either one, to be honest.

    The first has too much going on. It’s just a busier version of the current logo. All that shiny metallic stuff reminds me of ’80s action-movie posters.

    The second one’s just odd. It’s too far removed from the current logo to even be identifiable with Mint.

    I say keep the current green-and-white logo. It’s simple, iconic and classy — everything a good, strong logo ought to be. Why ‘fix’ what isn’t broken?

    If anything needs changing, it’s the text that accompanies the logo. You don’t need it. Save the slogan for the welcome screen and the website, and let the logo stand on its own.

  64. I agree with others that the second one is basically unreadable. The first one is prettier than the current logo, but still has an old-fashioned feel to it. Personally I still like Troken’s logo the best.

  65. I just love the logo in the first images. The colors look great to me. As for the text, I prefer the one in the second image because it’s closer to the actual “Linux Mint” text. If the second variant would get the color styling of the text in the first picture I think it would look even better. 🙂

  66. I preffer the first one, because if we look only to it, the “LM” make an refference to Linux Mint. I can’t see that on the second one.

  67. I much prefer the 2nd one.

    Either keep the actual one (which is good) or use the second one. Either way it would be a good idea to use the font from the first design…

  68. Absolutely love the first (top) logo. It modernises the logo without changing it too much.

    The second logo looks great, too, but it’s abstract enough that it could take a while for people to make the association between the logo and “Linux Mint”. It is also somewhat evocative of the old Sun Microsystems logo, with its prominent use of segmented S-shaped and U-shaped symbols. This could work both for and against Mint as a brand.

    Given that Mint already has an established identity, but is still growing in popularity, I would say that the first (top) logo would be (IMHO) the safest and best choice.

    However, if a change is going to be made, now would be the time to do it…

  69. i liked the FONT and text colours of the second one, but really disliked how the logo didn’t have LM in it… the first one IS very nice, but i’d prefer if linux mint didn’t move in the direction of a metallic theme, too much like mac OSX.

  70. Both of the artists have done a fine job; much better than I could ever do. However, my “vote” would be to stick with the current logo and lettering.

    On the first rework, I just do not care for the overly shiny effect on the logo. I also do not like how the brand name is run together in lower case making it look like one word even though they are done in two different colors.

    On the second example, the design in the mint leaf looks cool but it does not help in identifying this brand. I also think that taking off the stem makes it lose that extra bit of leafy identity.

    Just on anecdotal evidence, it seems to me that Linux Mint is spreading extremely well among those like myself wanting a distro that just plain works right out of the box and gives one the luxury of learning the deeper things about Linux at one’s leisure. As the old saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I see nothing wrong with Linux Mint’s current identity. At least consider what I have to say as somebody that has been involved in many types of marketing over the years…don’t change something just because you can, change something only if it will bring in more people.

    However, as for the Linux Mint website, I do think it could use an overhaul. I would not overdo it but it definitely could use a little more zip. Sure, it gives people all of the information one could ever need. However, when compared to the websites of the other major Linux distros, it does seem a bit drab and might turn some people off. But, like I said, please don’t go nuts on the new design…use the KISS principle. 😉

    All of that being said, I will be fine with whatever is decided by Linux Mint. I’m certainly not going to stop using it and encouraging others to try it just because of a logo or its website. It’s what’s under the hood that really counts, and I give thanks to the computer gods every day for Linux Mint coming into my life and saving me from the eternal damnation of Windows. 😎

  71. Logo # 1

    The Mint’s logo became more polished now but only one request:
    Ask for Vast or somebody else to let the logo background 100% green.
    No color mixed within the logo background.

    Mint is green
    Green is Mint


  72. I’ve always found the first logo quit difficult to integrate into an interface due to its shape. It looks like a printer cartridge seen from the side.

    I personnly prefer much more second logo which is way more sleek and streamlined. The new abstract design inside the logo (letters strokes re-arranged)that reminds me Psion logo, is awesome.

    The new font is definitely more sleek! congrats!

    I personally vote SECOND LOGO without a doubt.

  73. I’d just continue everything like in Mint 9. Mint is green. This metallic gray color looks like the gravestone of a fine distro. Sux. Why ruin a good thing just for the sake of change?

  74. I like the first one because it has so much depth, just like linux mint. I associate depth with elegance and beauty and with the look of things in real life. I also like the metallic look because the word “mint” could be either a leaf or reminiscent of something of value like a coin (coins are minted). Tying many associations together makes a thing memorable. All the associations are positive ones, and the depth helps to give it that extra touch that associates all the positive associations with the vibrancy of life itself. Certainly this vibrancy and beauty remind me of linux mint and that beautiful phrase “From freedom came elegance.” Yet, you could entertain the idea of a shorter statement, easier to remember, and easier to print clearly in a shorter space: Freedom and Elegance. Yet I am completely enamored by the first design. I really like it.

  75. Let’s add something here. Why not have people, to emphasize their vote, promise to donate if their choice of logo is chosen. They could give more anytime but just 5 dollars to say “Hey, I really feel strongly about my choice.” That way the choice isn’t bought but it’s a small way to emphasize how strongly they feel, thus allowing a vote but also a way to give a sense of the strength of feeling behind the vote. When I see that number one is chosen I will gladly donate a token amount of 5 dollars. Let’s see how strongly people feel not just how many happen to vote. Larger donations would not be allowed in this vote so no one can say the logo choice was bought. Hey, it’s just a suggestion.

  76. #2 ALL IN!

    From a Graphic Design Standpoint:
    – Its Balanced
    – Constructs something new using the same old elements.
    – Its not boring, because it has dinamism provided by the lines movement!
    – Conveys a more lasting impression than the first one trough the use of more natural progression of curves and shapes.
    – Excellent reduction of the overdone shine.
    – Further abstraction of the leaf makes for an even more easier to remember logo. Also provides a base to create support materials that convey better the mint image.

    If it worths something, studying Graphics Design College Degree.

    The mass effect of everything in #2 its just better by leaps and bounds. Go for it blindlessly!

  77. The original one itself is very good and is an identity for Linux Mint for freshness, lively, simpleness etc etc. Both of the above are also good but they can be used as variations. But it is Clem’s and his teams decision to change or not or is there a change required.

  78. What do you think about using the both logos? The first one for the Ubuntu-based editions and the second one for the Debian-based LMDE.

  79. The first one is a bit too much design for a logo that size.
    The second one looks pretty good but for the average person it is difficult to read an “LM” out of it. The font is superb!
    I would like to see the original logo with the font of the second set. That would look astounding!

  80. The second one looks like a bad case of leaf miner.

    Also, the font on the second one is atrocious (no dotted i’s makes It Look Like Someone Doesn’t Know their lowerCASE from Their Uppers; and the final t looks like it’s about to fall over). Horrible.

    The first one looks like the leaf has become a tent. What’s with all this OSX gel-like 3D rubbish anyway?!

    Leave it alone, basically. Dump the ‘from freedom came elegance’, though: I use Mint because it’s highly functional, not because I think it elegant.

  81. I totally agree with AKiRa121 , those two logos are okay . but are they up to my expectations ? absolutely not .. you guys are missing the point here , a good logo isnt about the fancy effects .. the first one is just the old logo with effects , didnt add anything new to it .. and the second one is okay but dont see it as the default logo for Linux Mint , ..
    if you guys are willing to keep up the good reputation that Mint has , I suggest you come up with a better logo.
    Se7en aka Archangel.

  82. #1

    I really miss the Mint Green too. The dark gray ‘Julia’ stuff looks like a Harry Potter flick.

  83. I don’t really see what’s better about the second one.
    The first one is a bit nicer than what it is now, except that “From freedom came elegance” looks like one big word there.
    Maybe it’s also time for a new slogan, or maybe to just remove it from the logo…

  84. 1st one
    also add it to the start menu. lm10 gnome start menu logo (it looks like a star or flower) look rather, um, lame. its one of the first things i personally change to mintMenu.png

  85. The ID Linux Mint is already established. I like the border shape of the 2nd option but warn against changing the LM logo too much. I vote for a modification of the border shape and some tweaking. A newbie would never see the LM is the 2nd option.

  86. I second the idea of using the 1st one for ubuntu based editions and the second one for debian based editions.

  87. I love Lazar’s! The second one rocks! The first one looks fine on its own, but I wouldn’t even call it an incremental improvement over the current logo. In fact it even busies the logo a bit too much in my opinion.

    I also support the movement to rename the distro simply “Mint.” What a great idea!

  88. I love the second one =] the way the design on the leaf looks like an m and maybe the hint of an l before it when you turn you head is very nice!

  89. Now, I think I have to “vote” too:
    1st one! – of course. This logo is well known, I like it since years and it is a traditional familiar sign or icon on all my desktops…
    Yes – improve it, looks nice, but…please don’t change it.

  90. It’s hard to take a very familiar image and ask “how could we do this better?” Sure it isn’t to everyone’s liking, but nothing is.
    — Inspired in Martin Pilkington words.

    It WORKS better. #2 Its the way to go.

  91. Honestly I do not like any of the 2 proposals. He was wearing all my attention on designs that can be viewed here:

    I especially liked these two proposals:

    I think these variants give a certain freshness to the current logo. Sure it is possible to improve them, perhaps with some effect.

  92. i love the second logo very much wish i can install it right now on mint 10 i guss logos should be given in software manager with new themes

    what mint lacks is less themes they at least create one new theme for mint every month or quarterly that gives mint edge over other distro’s

    what average people want is ease of use, stability, eyecandy looks and decent security by default if mint can maintain all …it rocks

    i dont say they change every 3 month their looks but at lease they can provide themes and wallpaper in their software menu so those who like to change they can …………where in core mint stick with its default gnome rock solid base and menu-looks without changing its menu……etc they are perfect (ie different theme icons mint-menu-colors mint-menu-background looks ….wallpaper …..etc without compromising real mint)



  93. i like 1st logo as well i look very elegent and maintain mint old style and class 1 logo very classy

    where 2nd is new and fresh and eye catchy best thing i suggest that what i suggest before mint should provide themes with these logos and let user to decide it make every one happy even artist :))

  94. There are no technical rules for designing logos. A good logo is onethat can easily be recorded in our memory and captures ourattention and that should be associated with the company vision.

  95. the first logo is way too shiny and shoots brightness like little spears of death 😛

    second has a better color palette, but way too abstracted like a noodle with the wiggling.

    one problem of using highlights is that contrast becomes an issue and heavy abstraction loses the meaning of the “lm”. however, combine the color palette and treatment of subtleties in the second with a less contrasty version of the first and you’ve got an awesome logo that says “I’m Mint, I’m Free, and I’m not a half-baked Apple clone!”

  96. If you wish to change anything, I would prefer
    #1. It represents clearly Linux Mint, just with the wording “From Freedom came elegance”. That is Mint.

    #2 are only unreadable wild lines to me, which represent nothing. Someone who doesn’t know Mint can’t identify it by that logo.

    To change a well known logo, that has gained prestige over the time, only because of the wish to change something, doesn’t stand for seriousness and respectability.

    Mint has a name to lose. From Freedom Came Elegance. Don’t destroy it.

  97. I absolutely love the second one, it kinda looks like a leaf but the squiggles sorta suggest “LM”. I always preferred the Ubuntu & Kubuntu logos to the current Linux Mint logo but that second one up there is really original as opposed to just initials “LM”. I think it would also go nicer on the KDE “Start Button” 🙂

  98. I vote for the first logo, very refined and clean. The second one doesn’t make the connection with me.

  99. Realy like the second one. A Leaf, no real letters = a sign !
    could be for LMDE suggesting by other, and writting LMDE in the same maner could be really fun too!

  100. I agree with ketan (#7) “i like first one also, but the border i feel is too thick including the font thickness.” I also would not like to loose the slogan “From Freedom Came Elegance”. It is the heart of Linux Mint.

  101. I like the shape of the second one because it doesn’t have the square part in the top left corner, but the LM is not at all visible, I think the current LM font used and the one on the top image are better.

  102. Both logos have lots of merit and deserve to be taken into consideration, however in my opinion, the first one is the best of the 2 because represents better the current one and a drastic change is not desirable.

  103. The second one! I don’t like the current one; I use the LM leaf I found via Google. By changing it to the second one makes me reconsider my change.

  104. Would they permit their designs to be combined? Vast’s logo with Lazar’s text looks very classy. It accentuates the “LM.”

  105. I like the logo referred in Сергей’s post (post 45). It is, sweet, simple, aesthetic, and to the point.

  106. I guess I like the first one the best. I thought about it for a long time because I think that it is important,

  107. This is my first post on an LM forum. I’ve been using LM on and off since its first release.

    The only thing I thought LM could do better, is its logo.

    A logo is like a reflection of the amount of perfection in the work.

    Seriously, the current logo, lacks a “professional” touch. I really like the second Lazar Bogicevic’s logo . It makes LM stand out, is does LM justice.

    I’m sure LM would go places, and a new, better looking logo, would only add to the grandeur of it all.

    Changing the logo to something better, is a very good idea. Please do it.

  108. I would not change my logo. its Linux mints identity. a identity of continuity.. you can change text of Linux mint..

  109. I like these logos but what is wrong with the current logo Linux Mint have always an very nice logo so don’t change too much and keep the very good work up.

  110. I propose to choose the logo that looks like the most about the current identity. In this case, the logo of the first image.
    PS: Clem, add a poll?

  111. I am very much impressed by the second one…Bravo Lazar Bogicevic!!
    This will be a nice move to have a refreshing new look for a highly potent OS

  112. Second thoughts:

    I think the second logo is not that impressive as I thought it to be and the team should wait till the ideal, prefect logo is designed.

    I agree with #95 Jesse189567 on the things he pointed out but with ‘monochrome logo’ I meant that the logo must be like the ubuntu logo (top left corner on the panel) – white on dark panels and dark on light panels and not like the one that currently sits beside the ‘Menu’ of the mintMenu launcher.

  113. I see what you mean about the second logo being handier, but I don’t really like the stuff in the leaf… I agree with Subhashish that it’d be best to wait for other designs.

  114. Stick with the 1st one. I strongly identify with it. It’s strong, clean and efficient. The second one is too artistic to be a brand logo.

  115. Still using Mint 9, I like its boot splash very much. Slim and elegant font.

    As for proposed logo #1: 3D here, 3D there, 3D everywhere. They have it, we must have it. Why was that again?

    As I don’t understand the proposed logo #2, I don’t like it at all. It’s anything, but not Mint.

    Also, the green shades are not the Mint ones. They are grass green, not mint green.

    What was the problem with the current logo again?

  116. From the “Constructive Opinion Department”: I rather not be a contrarian, but I have a different take on the logo. I subscribe to the school of design that says it’s great if a logo looks like sexy eye-candy, but the first priority of its design should be to convey what the logo truly represents. What is the message of the current mint leaf theme? Does it convey optimal and intuitive meaning? In the case of LM, both the tag-line/slogan and it’s main value proposition via other distro’s is that “from freedom can elegance”. I can list a dozen ways that LM embodies “freedom” and “elegance”. But the most significant seems to me, IMHO, is that individuals across the globe are contributing to the world’s most elegant, flexible and accessible OS (period). Additionally, the perspective that “the whole (LM) is greater than the sum of it’s parts (contributions)”. All that being said, how does a representation of a shiny leaf with two (meaninglessly?) connected letters (LM) embedded inside the leaf convey the key purpose, activities and main selling points of “Freedom” and “Elegance”? While the proposed logos might look pretty and elegant to many of you, it seems somewhat empty in meaning and purpose other than to look cool and distinctive. LM is anything but *just* a pretty face. Additionally, the distinctiveness here is questionable, since there’s a popular financial web service site called “Mint” that prominently uses the mint leaf for it’s logo. OK, two last thoughts: take a look at the collection of exemplary logos at Secondly, I have some thoughts on an alternative design that is very different, but,of course, that I think is way better :-/ Is there any interest in entertaining very different ideas from the current logo theme? I’m not a super great artist, (I design UI requirements and layouts professionally) but I can sketch my ideas sufficiently that perhaps a more artistic Fan of LM could help beautify and professionalize it? Just some earnest thoughts. Oh, and BTW, to those of you who have made Linux Mint possible, THANK YOU! 🙂

  117. Oh, dwats! I guess in my case today, my Freedom begot a silly typo. Obviously, it should have read “comes” not “can”…Oops. (Chuckle. Sigh). I am sooo human…

  118. I prefer the second one. It’s more elegant.

    Because it’s better and because the current logo reminds me too much of the nVidia logo.

  119. I have never really understood the slogan… And I don’t think you should be changing the logo too radically, you gotta think about the brand…

  120. I do like the first logo, by Vast and, the font used in the title (Linux Mint), by Lazar Bogicevic is wonderful, different and clear. Can’t we combine these together?

  121. i absolutely do not like the second one – way too complex and way too much change.

    the first one does what everyone seems to be into – adding some shine and reflections.

    but what the hell – mint is just a few years old. you cannot build a brand if you change your logo every few years. and the current one is nice and simple. i vote for no change at all.

  122. has apple ever changed it’s apple? has bmw ever changed the graphics of its blue and white logo? the more i look at those logos the more i think it is dead wrong to change your logo and those logos are definitly not good enough to justify such a move.

    develop a mint-font if you need.

  123. [quote] 186. # stephan Says:
    March 11th, 2011 at 10:13 pm

    has apple ever changed it’s apple? has bmw ever changed the graphics of its blue and white logo? the more i look at those logos the more i think it is dead wrong to change your logo and those logos are definitly not good enough to justify such a move.

    develop a mint-font if you need.

    Actually, yes, they HAVE changed their design of the apple. [img][/img]

    Same as the second logo. If people would OPEN their eyes and ACTUALLY see it. Then they would SEE the LM for Linux Mint CLEARLY.

  124. yes .we need to change linuxmint logo, both its cool….., but i think they look old and to complicated….. its must be look sinple and modern.also timeless

  125. I like the actual, and the propose made by elav… but if I must to choose between these two I prefer the first one…

  126. The second is impressive, we have a distro what changes every six month… if we made the change right now in one year the first logo cannot be remembered.

    How many people uses Gloria or Helena??? ok, thats your answer. A logo in a distro it is something you see every day, in every place… with the new version of Mint maybe feel extrange the first two month… but in the version 12 the second logo will be established.

    The Second Rocks!

  127. Come on, what’s wrong with the original vintage LinuxMint?
    It’s simple, beautiful and marketable.

    If you’re talking about redesigning PCLinuxOS logo, now that’s something I truly truly understand.

  128. I like the first logo more, because it looks closer to a leaf than the second, which is too schematic.

    However, the font [not the one in the leaf] used in the second logo is more elegant, I would suggest a creation that uses the best parts in both logos.

    Keep up the good work!

  129. The first logo is better. It is easier to identify with linux mint when quickly looking at it. The second one looks like a logo for something called greenleaf.

  130. the first is more professional . but still needs some work
    it could look better ,
    my vote for the first

  131. If you’re going to think about rebranding – then why not ditch the ‘linux’ and just call it ‘mint’?? I think the second logo plus the word ‘mint’ would be perfect. I think a lot more people would get involved then, as many newbies are put off by the word ‘linux’

  132. There are elements of both that are attractive. I lean toward the first. Linux Mint has risen quickly, and with just cause, to be a highly appreciated and recognisable distro in the world. There should be something significant to cause a shift from that. That being said, I feel the both the border of the logo and the letters inside the logo should be thinner. Linux Mint doesn’t need to be ‘big, bad, and bold’ in visual presentation; it’s quality and effectiveness says everything. Also, I really live keeping the slogan visible, unless you are considering dropping it altogether.

    For me, I will use Linux Mint, if it shows up in lavender and fuchsia!

  133. i like them both. could you add the first logo into the leaf of the second logo?. that would look good

  134. I think the 1st logo is more indicative of the L and M and should be used simply for recognition purposes. The 2nd logo leaf, while stylish, does not reflect the LM very well. Looks more like a symbol than letters, and hard to figure out what it would mean if you did NOT know it was Linux Mint.

  135. While both have good appeal, I prefer the first one as it keeps with the original moniker. Too much change usually isn’t so great look at M$ and their constant change of doing daily tasks. Second one is interesting though as it actually resembles a mint leaf. Might be able to use it as an alternative theme within the OS. You could change if you choose another direction from Ubuntu, but I think that would lend to more confusion. Just my 2 cents.

  136. Aledesign:

    Great job! Those are some wonderful designs. If a change is going to be made then they should certainly be considered or incorporated into the new logo.

  137. I prefer the first one with no hesitation: it is more modern, it has more impact. The only problem is the fonts used, they should be more elegant: the one used for LinuxMint text is “brutal/heavy” too much and the second one is “casual” too much. There’s also a big problem with spacing between words in the “from freedom came elegance” text! And maybe the LM logo letters should be more “white” to create a better contrast on the green background.
    IMO, the second logo is not good for many reasons: the overall shape (square with two opposite rounded corners) is “already-seen-everywhere” contrary to the actual logo which has a very original shape, very personnal. The “metal-style” border is not as good as the one in the first logo. The overall logo is too symetrical. The “white snake” (supposed to be the LM letters, isn’t it?) is absolutely unreadable. And last but not least, i really dislike the “MacOS reflection” under the logo, LinuxMint doesn’t have to mimic the Apple style as Ubuntu does, LinuxMint have its own style and that’s what i like. The only good thing is the font: it reminds me simplicity, elegance, purity and is easy to read.

  138. I agree with #110 — I was an early-adopter of SunOS (v3.2) in 1988, and the proposed new Linux Mint logo (#2) immediately reminded me of the Sun Microsystems logo. Let’s not go there… the original logo (#1), with the displayed enhancements, is fine. “Brand recognition” is not something to be changed on a whim… it ain’t broke, so don’t “fix” it!

    My $0.02… YMMV!

  139. I like the first logo better.

    It’s sleek, elegant and updated, but obviously not too far a departure from the original, and it’s readily identifiable with the “L” and “M” in “Linux Mint”.

    The second one is attractive, but I can’t connect the dots between it and the brand; it requires more work from the viewer. It would be one thing if Mint had started out with it, but I think it would seem a bit awkward to switch to something like that in midstream after all this time.

  140. The first logo is my pick. I agree with all the reasons stated by exploder. In particular I don’t like the lettering on the second logo. I can just see people looking at the second logo with a head tilt.

  141. DON’T MAKE IT SHINY LIKE FIRST ONE, its NOT elegant, its cheap. Make mat colors and simple shapes. Definitely second one is more elegant and way better!

  142. Should Mint change its logo?
    No, if there is not really an important change in the project. To improve web resources is not really such case.

    Would be interesting to created a new logo now?
    Yes, if you apply a new logo for Debian project and put an effort to evolve such flavor. This is something new and it seems to me the only way Mint can go beyond Ubuntu.

    First alternative logo is unpleasant to view.

    Second alternative logo is not easily identifiable with “Linux Mint”. Please remember we are not “Mint” but “Linux Mint”.

    Try another one!

  143. The second one is great, looking like a symbol at first glance, revealing the letters l & m at second glance.

  144. Call me crazy, but I like the current logos better than both of those logos. The original logo makes it easier to integrate it with many different elements if needed to, from background images of a wallpaper, or print material. I’m all for changing to improve, but I think neither of these do that

  145. I prefer Vast’s logos’s (the 1st set). A nice freshening for the current logo. The squiggly lines of the 2nd logo do not intuitively communicate to a new user that it represents the words “Linux Mint”.

  146. I like the first one better.

    The second one is attractive, but requires a bit more work for the viewer. The first one is more readily identifiable with Mint.

  147. I like the first one better.

    The second one is attractive, but requires a bit more work for the viewer. The first one is more readily identifiable with Mint.

    I like the old font style better, though. The lettering on the new one is bit stocky and squat, not as elegant as the old, slender lettering.

  148. keep the old one!

    Or take the second one if you must (but make letters more readable)! (the first one is nice but too shiny and I don’t like that it appears to be a bent piece of plastic…)

    Why not make a proper poll?

  149. Second one much better
    So fresh, minimalistic, modern.
    Remember that only cow don’t change point of view 😉

  150. I would like to hear comments on the idea of dropping ‘Linux’ from the logo. For me MINT says it all. And the more I look at the second logo the more I like it. It is new, fresh and yet unmistakably it says MINT.

    I don’t think we are ready for a pool yet – as lets make sure we explore all the options and ‘get it right.’

  151. I like the idea of dropping “Linux” altogether and just being called “Mint”

    I like both, they are stunning, but I’m inspired to try and create one myself, because I don’t think either do enough justice to the “From freedom came elegance” theme…

    Though, no disrespect to the authors, they’re gorgeous.

  152. I prefer the second one but as billiecowie previously said in comment #38 the first one points out clearly that we’re talking about Linux Mint.
    As a compromise I would use the first logo with the font of the 2nd.

  153. I guess I am old school and I like the 1st set which was a remake of the original logo. That logo in my opinion is established and though it can be improved as Vasi did it should retain the original look.

    1. Says who we are with the LM een if the rest isn’t seen

    2. Nice design but don’t see how it relate to Linux MInt without the wording. Maybe in time it would become reconisible as our curremt one but it would be like starting over.

    Both artist did great work and thank you both for your work.

  154. The first one all the way. It is still the old logo, still recognizable, and yet it is new and modern. That makes it the best of both worlds.

    I personally don’t see the appeal in the second one. I mostly agree with what comment 255.

  155. The 1st Icon is very nice, the 2nd is hideous. However, the logo [Text] on the 2nd is not bad, maybe better than 1st Text. Please use first ICON above all.

  156. Neither of these two are bad.
    But the second serves the term “logo” better in my opinion.
    You could easily make it monochromatic black&white, which makes it very usable for letterheads and many other things!

  157. When we say “not bad” it means we are judging critically. To say “good” has a sense of appraisal. I am new to linuxmint and quite impressed with the complete OS. For me the first image(logo) is good enough and has Corporate message in it while the second one is undoubtedly artistic. The 1st can have the Text showing mirror reflection as in the 2nd image.And also, colours are essential for life
    If any improvements are to be made it is in the first image.I Liked the first image.

  158. To me both look like they could use some work;

    #1 – don’t like the fact that it relies completely on color; it’s true that a good logo also works monochrome

    #2 – don’t like much the font used for the LM; it’s not readable enough.

    On the other hand I really like the work done by @Aledesign in response #147

    Perhaps we should do a poll vote on more concepts ?

  159. I personally do not care for the idea of a re think of the logo. Too many companies have lost following because they get too wrapped up in change. I start to question where the groups focus is when they worry about the appearance more than the content.
    That said I would vote for the first if i had to.

  160. voting for the first one. Even if the second had a better idea in general, the quality of the first is better

  161. Ditch the LM in the logo. Just use the leaf in a matte fashion with a nice silver border only. Keep the border small and tight. Emboss the border to make the center look sunken in a little.

    A simple logo can be used as small or large as you like. Add the words as needed for staionary, titles etc..

  162. Both are great, i suggest the first one because is Mint identity but, i wood change it with the leaf shape from the second, is not a big change, it will bring some refreshments and also will keep stability in identity.

  163. +1 for the second logo, looks more modern, refreshing. I think it suits Linux Mint better, changing isn’t a bad idea since you now maintain LMDE which is really great!! Maybe writing the L and M separately on the leaf would be better, making LM actually readable.

  164. I like the current logo and don’t really see the NEED to change, but if it comes down to it and yall decide to change then for sure Lazars icon (second one) would be preferable

  165. Dont change the logo. All like you on you going to first place, why change what is really working and is good? Second logo is if you try make India company look japanies.

  166. I think Linux Mint should alter their appearance to a black and green style. A black and green site using the first logo would be sweeeet!

  167. I like the second logo (just the leaf part) since it’s a whole new design and not a rehash, but the rehash of the original logo (first design) along with the font are too good to not use.

    My vote is for the first one.

  168. @Geminga: I like it!
    If I should choose between the first two I would keep the actual logo. The second doesn’t keep the soul of the project and the second it’s too Glossy. The Geminga one it’s very cool and fresh!

  169. The first one is very good as a hardware logo. The second one will look good on splash screens, gdm,etc.

  170. Thank you guys. I think that Linux Mint needs a corporate identity. Everyone knows that the twirl is Debian and a circle with three dots is Ubuntu, star is Mandriva……
    I tried to do this with the mint leaf. So, if someone will see the leaf he will know it is Linux Mint.


  171. They’re both very nice indeed! I would go with the second design by a slight margin. It is a bit more distinctive and I think it catches your attention a little more because the LM isn’t quite so obvious as the first.

  172. There are elements to both that are excellent… however I do prefer the 1st one with the distinctive LM lettering.

    Suggestion: How about using leaf design similar to second and soften/thin the lettering and border a little in 1st. And get rid of caption. It’s not needed I don’t think.

  173. biswarup – I like your idea of a hardware logo – I’d have them on my computers for sure… especially with the silver look.

    Hmmm would look cool on a keychain too. Silver/chrome and green enamels with epoxy on the top to give it a nice shiny protective coat.

  174. I love the second one. You guys should open up a poll if you do decide to change your logo. I don’t exactly have a problem with the current design, but I am a big believer in refreshing things.

  175. I Currently have my menu logo changed to a modified Atari logo i made. I’d trade that for the second one. But perhaps the gloss of the first one can be used on the second?

  176. neither is good.

    I think the biggest problem of all Mint logos is that they are too massive. Much more massive than the letters.
    Take a look at the logos of other distros – they are elegant. The Mint’s logos have never been so. Just big. Green. Massive.

    I think if the developers do intend to change the logo – they should better announce a (new) contest for logos – I’m sure there are talented Mint users that would contribute a better logo =)

    I also think that changing the bad to better is not “we feel like doing something that really adds no value”.

    Even if the leaf is the symbol, please make it elegant =)

  177. There’s an old slogan that goes like this: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I’m sorry, I love Mint, but every time there’s some kind of improvement on this version, more and more functionality is lost…..with LM10, my Alps touchpad doesn’t have all of its functionality i.e. (not being able to right click to resize windows and/or making Firefox borders bigger…I have to use a wireless mouse which I don’t like doing) and there are too many glitches with KDE 4.6…it has a tendency to crash a lot. It’s like the standards keep going up to make things run or work…just like Win Vista. I had LM 10 on my Dell Latitude D810, but switched back to 9 because there are to many things that don’t work….I couldn’t even do a crash report because it said there was insificiant information or the fact that I couldn’t remember what I was doing to even give any kind of info. Mind you, I appreciate all the hard work that goes into LM, I would just like the devs to listen a little more intently to us as to drivers…Alps works great in LM9…able to use all functions…10 would have been better if they stuck to 9’s drivers for everything to work correctly. If and when LM11 come out? would you please consider putting the LM9 drivers for Alps Dual Point Touchpad back

  178. I believe a poll is in order. Include the two logos in the post of course as two of the possible choices in the poll plus a third choice of “Keep current logos” but I’d also strongly recommend adding the logos mentioned in comment 147 (Aledesign) as possible choices as well sans the KDE version shown in the examples. KDE’s current logo is pretty much fine the way it is imho. But the proposed logos for LM and LMDE as referenced in comment 47 are worth serious consideration.

    My two cents anyway.

  179. I also think that a poll is in order…both look amazing..I have a hard time between the two….I agree with the comment that if Mint stays with Ubuntu base–keep the 1st one & if Mint heads back towards Debian more in the future keep the 2nd one.

  180. The first one looks cleaner and clearer. The only problem is that the same shades that make it look better will get lost at lower color depth.

    Most great logos are two at most three colors including the white.

  181. I prefer the second one to the first.

    I agree that major changes in logo are best accompanied by major changes is underlying mechanics, but the first one comes off as too flashy/chromy. I don’t really care for it, and actually prefer the current logo.

    The second one is sleek, elegant, fresh and attractive, which I think is EXACTLY what Linux Mint is all about.

  182. Gentle Folk,
    Mint is worthy of a much wider user base. Any unneeded abstraction of the LM on the current logo seems to me too obscure. Although a nice effort and delicious food for thought, Lazar has modified the LM into a new language that no one can understand, other than the existing choir of Mint Users (bless them.)
    I strongly recommend adherence to the most simple, comprehensible statement. Vast’s polished version of the current logo is better marketing.
    Be well.

  183. I really like the #2. I don’t like the slogan below in the #1. In any case both are good designs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *