The Ubuntu logo has a great concept, but the drawing isn't perfect. I'm a little disappointed

[sebastjava]

Your logo has a good concept and looks good. But it looks subtly imperfect, to me. At first glance, the three heads are placed at straight, symmetrical angles: 30°, 150°, 270°. But, when you look more closely, there is a very subtle additional rotation. A rotation so subtle that it seems more accidental than intentional to me.

In comparison, the previous version from 2010 was made of perfect values everywhere. The 3 circles, or heads, had perfectly symmetrical rotation angles of 30°, 150°, and 270° degrees.

Don’t get me wrong: I like your new logo version from 2022, as I like the entire graphic design of the system. So I am not suggesting any major change to the concept of the logo, but just a redrawn version of the same logo. Just a few pixels of difference.

Version 2025: Same Look But Precise Engineering

I’ve created a new version. A new logo that’s very similar to the current version. But the method used is quite different. My SVG coding is just perfect. And the resulting image is just perfect.

Okay, it’s just a logo. But this logo is the first thing I see when I start my computer. A well-designed logo will inspire all my work. Here are some excerpts from Our brand values :

Ubuntu is crisp and clean in engineering and attitude. There is beauty in the precision of the process and product.

Our values should be evident wherever Ubuntu is encountered, whether online or via traditional marketing material.

The Ubuntu logo is striking and clear, and it represents the brand’s core values.

So I expect a logo that is perfectly well coded and displayed.

Read more and download this new logo here:

https://github.com/SebastJava/Ubuntu-logo

[eeickmeyer]

Just a counterargument: the logo is supposed to represent people in a circle holding hands or arms. People are imperfect, and the logo reflects as such.

-Playing devil’s advocate, it’s a gift-

[sebastjava]

@eeickmeyer If this slight rotation was intentional, some trace of humanity, then I suggest making it an obvious rotation. A 10° rotation, for example. To make it clear that this is an informal drawing, and not just an imperfection, an accident, a mistake…

Alternate “Organic” Version

Please note that this alternate version is still based on my “perfect” SVG, so each head is exactly the same size. Because we’re imperfect but… perfectly equal, in principle.

[eeickmeyer]

Honestly, it’s not even my logo to do anything with, I was just offering an opinion.

[sebastjava]

No problem. You just reminded me that I was keeping this alternative up my sleeve…

[Claus7]

Hello,

I just came across this thread and I would like to mention the following: I didn’t notice any strange thing to any of these drawings as far as the “human” representations are concerned. I would suggest though to return back to the square shaped background, instead of a rectangular one.

Just to mention that the original one was squared…

Regards!

[eeickmeyer]

@Claus7

Just to mention that the original one was squared…

That’s inaccurate. The one from 2010 (what I’m assuming you see as original) was round. Before that, it was not enclosed at all and was multi-colored.

That said, the rectangle is known as the “banner” and that has been around since 2022. I believe there are no plans to change that at this time.

[Claus7]

Hello,

you are totally correct. Symmetry was in my memory, which was mixed with the latest one. I was thinking about what you mention, that there are no plans for a change, yet coming across this thread I wanted to find out if there was a slight possibility that might change.

Regards!

[sebastjava]

@Claus7

I didn’t notice any strange thing to any of these drawings as far as the “human” representations are concerned.

@Claus7 It’s a very subtle and undesirable little rotation, in my humble opinion. A small detail that irritates an old perfectionist graphic designer like me.

I myself sometimes have a little trouble distinguishing the 2022 version from the 2025 version. The trick is to put another window on top… That way, you can clearly see this small difference.

See the 2022 version here, with this subtle rotation revealed by this window from https://discourse.ubuntu.com on top…

[Claus7]

Hello,

you found the right person to give you an opinion…

I struggle every single version of ubuntu trying to bring back the regular icons instead of symbolic ones to my system, with the latter being the copy-paste tactic from android, which is ok for mobile phones, yet not for my desktop. And every time the developers change their place, so it is even harder every time.

For your argument though, I will tell you that I prefer the original logo of ubuntu. The one you provide with your screenshot is really nice for me, since it seems symmetrical from all sides. So my first concern would be the symmetry and then the “circles”.

I believe that a logo, as simple as it might be, it takes a ton of time for the designer to create. I’m not in the same league so as to understand that though or at least to be able to grasp the exact effort and work, or to be the owner of the logo and take decisions about it. I just came across this thread and reminded me a discussion back in ubuntu forums. As it seems that I’m old fashioned, I do not think that I will give to the designer the right direction.

And last but not least: irrespective of the logo throughout the years and a preference here or there, always it was a nice one.

Regards!

[sebastjava]

I’ll try to summarize things differently. I’ve already used several images. Here, I’ll try to supplement and clarify with numbers.

Old logo from 2010: the three circles representing three heads are placed at angles of 30°, 150°, and 270°. This is what I consider “symmetrical,” “equal,” and “perfect.”

Current logo from 2022: the three circles representing three heads are placed at angles that I measure at approximately 32.75°, 152.75°, and 272.75°… These angles are so close to “perfect” values ​​that it feels like a small mistake, not a “humanist” design intention.

My proposed logo for 2025: the three circles representing three heads are placed at angles of 30°, 150°, and 270°. These are exactly the same numbers as the 2010 logo. The three heads are thus positioned symmetrically. But, for the rest, it’s exactly the same concept as the current logo. So much so that it’s difficult to see the difference between the current logo (2022) and my version (2025).

In conclusion, this is purely a perfectionist’s job. And please don’t be distracted by my second proposal, i.e. the “organic” alternative, the asymmetrical version.

In short, I would like the logo to be either absolutely perfect or clearly “humanist”, “organic”. But not something that seems intended to be perfect but isn’t. And I already made and proposed those two logo versions:

1. my preferred and main version: perfect symmetry
2. my alternate version: boldly humanist or organic (obvious rotation)

The current version and my proposed version are extremely similar, visually. But they differ greatly in their method, in the underlying coding. It’s just a matter of perfectionism.

I’ve already shown the images, now here’s the coding:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<svg
   version="1.1"
   viewBox="0 0 450 708"
   id="svg6"
   width="450"
   height="708"
   xml:space="preserve"
   xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
   xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
   xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg">
  <defs
   id="defs6" />
  <rect
   style="stroke-width:0;stroke:none;fill:#e95420;"
   id="rect1"
   width="450"
   height="708"
   x="0"
   y="0" />
  <circle
   style="stroke-width:40;stroke:#ffffff;fill:none;"
   id="circle"
   cx="233"
   cy="465"
   r="130" />
  <circle
   style="stroke-width:0;stroke:none;fill:#e95420;"
   id="aura"
   cx="103"
   cy="465"
   r="65" />
  <circle
   style="stroke-width:0;stroke:none;fill:#ffffff;"
   id="head"
   cx="103"
   cy="465"
   r="45" />
  <use
   x="0"
   y="0"
   xlink:href="#aura"
   id="use1"
   transform="rotate(120,233,465)" />
  <use
   x="0"
   y="0"
   xlink:href="#aura"
   id="use2"
   transform="rotate(-120,233,465)" />
  <use
   x="0"
   y="0"
   xlink:href="#head"
   id="use3"
   transform="rotate(120,233,465)" />
  <use
   x="0"
   y="0"
   xlink:href="#head"
   id="use4"
   transform="rotate(-120,233,465)" />
</svg>

Once again, all the work is already done, and it’s all here:

GitHub - SebastJava/Ubuntu-logo: The Ubuntu Logo Rebuilt From Scratch.

Well, to be honest, there would still be some work to be done, updating the millions or billions of copies of this logo scattered all over the place. But that’s just a small detail.

[guiverc]

@sebastjava

But it looks subtly imperfect, to me.

The official logo, by being ‘subtly imperfect’ to me implies Ubuntu is in motion, and the logo is about to spin as seen in plymouth screens.

@eeickmeyer

Just a counterargument: the logo is supposed to represent people in a circle holding hands or arms. People are imperfect, and the logo reflects as such.

Some early Ubuntu books had people holding hands, and the logo has thus always reminded me of that, eg. I pulled a rather old book down from behind me and I see this. Alas modern users may not see this, as I intentionally reached for one of my older Ubuntu books so as to get one that matched what I thinking about.

[James-Carroll]

It’s common in design to force these imperfections, here’s another example:

I’m not sure why psychologically this is said to be beneficial, but I do recall seeing in the past (outside of Canonical/Ubuntu) that this is a legitimately intended effect in a lot of marketing materials.

Edit: I’ve found someone break down the one above here, it’s a different logo entirely of course but there’s a lot of commonality between them.
https://youtu.be/hV8hOLOC_Hk

[sebastjava]

EDIT: The first image in the OP has been updated: “Current version from 2022: strange rotation angles”.

The width values ​​have been removed. This only interfered with my main argument. My main argument was, and still is, about angles. So this doesn’t affect 99% of our discussion.

(I had noticed somewhere, probably in /usr/share/icons/Yaru/scalable/places/start-here-symbolic.svg, that the widths weren’t perfectly equal. But now I found they were probably correct everywhere else. This difference was negligible anyway. Sorry about that.)