Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:44:26PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
>
> This sounds like basing a decision on getting the most benefit with
> the least amount of work.

I am unaware of a better mechanism by which one decides which work to
do. The important thing is what "most benefit" means; and that turns
out to be hard to unpack.

> I respectfully counter your argument by suggesting that in this
> matter the effort, although significant, is justified by the
> benefits.

So what are they? That people can pronounce the name more easily?
This discussion heaves into sight every now and then (this time, much
to my chagrin, it's my fault. I'll know better than to make bad
jokes in public in the future!). I agree that the name is
unfortunate. But I just say "Postgres" most of the time, and people
seem to know what I'm taking about -- and yet no Official Changing of
Names has happened.

The thing is, I keep hearing claims that the name is a problem
significant enough to do work to change it. But why is it a problem?
Marketing, apparently. Ok, then, we need some market research. I
don't believe that the name itself is the biggest barrier -- just
that the name is not "Oracle". If someone has _data_ (not a war
story about the amusing last mispronunciation heard), I'd like to see
it.

> I argue that the exercise of debating and, if it comes to pass,
> implementation has benefits that far outweighs the effort.

How do you know that? So far, I have seen no serious discussion of
what the costs of a name change might be, or what the benefits could
be were we to adopt something else. There _will_ be confusion, work
for package maintainers, nasty upgrade problems with oldbies who say,
"Oh, I don't want Postgres; I want the SQL-engine one," and edits to
the manual. Old links might break. Marketing materials would need
to be reprinted (the project just bought a large trade-show banner,
for instance; we throw it away under this plan). Logos need
re-designing. These aren't free activities: they require at least
time, and maybe cash money too. It seems to me that something more
concrete than, "It won't cost much, and it'll have lotsa big
benefits," is needed as an argument to back it up.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
--Alexander Hamilton