Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

On 9/1/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> I could get over it, if this topic as well as the ugly Postgre sh*t it
> causes as a side effect would ever stop popping up. But it seems to me
> however often we "get over it", the problem only submerges to pop up
> again for the next release. Could it be that "getting over it" is kinda
> like playing ostrich - AGAIN, and that the numerous times we "got over
> it" only made the situation worse by reinforcing a mistake made long ago?

I agree.

> I suggest we someday stop "getting over it" and instead "get done with
> it". Because rest assured, otherwise it'll be back again ... and again.

Again, I agree. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it;
a seemingly continual trend in the Postgres community whether it's
feature or business-related. Ignoring a problem does not make it
disappear.

Throughout this discussion, it seems like the majority of people
against the name change, with the exception of those from Greenplum
and EnterpriseDB, are those who have a financial stake in it. And, as
JD suggested that EnterpriseDB's brand could be strengthened by the
name change, I just wanted to say that EnterpriseDB has never
suggested, in any way, that its community members should support the
Postgres name. It is my own personal opinion that Postgres is a
better name.

I understand the valid concerns made by the Postgres user groups and
by Gabriele Bartolini over printed PostgreSQL stuff like shirts and
materials. Trust me, it *will* be fine to distribute them until they
run out. Perhaps a lot of people here haven't been on eBay lately,
because collectible IT stuff goes quickly. No one will have a problem
accepting a PostgreSQL t-shirt if the name changes to Postgres.

Don't get me wrong. It will cost money to redo all the marketing
material if people feel that it's required immediately; which I don't.
Will CMD have to change it's tagline from, "The PostgreSQL Company"
to, "The Postgres Company"? That's a *business decision* for CMD, not
something that should affect a *community decision*.

Frankly, from what I've seen in the 7 or so years I've been working
with Postgres, the name PostgreSQL is definitely a problem. When all
of us were at the 10th anniversary, I don't recall a single person
talking about Postgres in discussion as PostgreSQL. If I had a dollar
for the number of times I heard it pronounced Postgre, I'd be quite
rich. The name PostgreSQL is just plain difficult for people.

IMHO, keeping the status quo will only continue to perpetuate advocacy
issues. Regardless, this thread has gone on for a *long* time and all
the debatable topics seem to be on the table. At some point, a vote
needs to be made.

I think the first decision should be on whether the name needs to be
changed. If it is decided to be changed, the next vote should be to
decide on when the name should be changed (8.3, 8.4, 9.0).

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/