Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:44:00 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Let me ask a question, how many people who are against a name change now
>
>> The bottom line is that the pronunciation/marketing problem with the
>> name "PostgreSQL" is not going to change --- it is only going to get
>> worse.
>
> I am against the name change and I do not agree with your assessment. I
> believe it will get better. As the only real problem is the initial
> understanding and pronunciation. The rest is muscle memory.

Agreed ... IMHO, all the arguments about 'long vs short term'are *very* myopic
and don't address any of the marketing efforts that ppl have / are *paying* for
with real cash ...

The only ppl that will benefit from this are those that *are* using Postgres in
their marketing right now, since it won't cost them a cent ... but, of course,
those are also the ones that *have the money* to throw away ...

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFG1ypt4QvfyHIvDvMRAk6IAJ9O2kzKUWXp5/0OHeuYdL1P7KjBxACdH2tV
agiz6PDpV84njzwdY8cWJZw=
=zh+B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----