Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

I have been avoiding voting on this topic. But. . .

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:

> > > How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> > > reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> > > involved out of the debate for the moment)?

First, discussing this without reference to the work it would cause
and such like is foolish. You don't commit to doing something only
because it would be a nice idea; you also do it recognising that
spending the time doing that thing entails you don't have other time
for other things you might like. So how much work it might be is a
_critical piece of information_ for deciding what you should do. The
glib responses in this thread suggest to me that at least some people
haven't worked through that. Moreover,

> Wouldn't it be a good marketing move to put a "vote for a name
> change" on the website's front page? The idea would be to make
> announcements all over the place like slashdot, digg etc. and
> asking the average joe for his input. You know the saying, "there's
> no such thing as bad press".

this strikes me as a plan to get all manner of people all over the
Net -- many of whom maybe hate Postgres -- to come and suggest that
_other_ people do work for a cosmetic change. I also don't believe
that claim that there's no such thing as bad press. If you disagree,
ask the engineers of the Corvair.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens."
--Bruce Schneier