Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.

On 9/27/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Why don't we just stop this whole PostgreSQL->Postgres->Postgre junk and
> just say, PostgreSQL, also referred to as PG.

To you, it doesn't matter anyway. You're consistently saying you're
fine with the, "also referred to as Postgres", just that you don't
want to change it officially. Still, you're saying, "also referred to
as PG" which means you still have no intent to officially do anything.

Seems to me like you're trying to get everyone to forget the actual
official name change topic and back onto the Postgres, PG, <insert
your own favorite name here> discussion.

> Heck, I know plenty of people that just say PG, or PGSQL, myself included.

So do I, but not in conversation; it just sounds lame. I can't think
of one sentence that sounds good with PG in place of Postgres.
Frankly, I think PostgreSQL is better than "PG" in spoken
conversation.

Examples (which sounds better from a marketing perspective? PG is a
geek acronym that ain't gonna fly in helping Postgres advocacy):

After seeing what PG is capable of, our company decided to adopt it.
After seeing what Postgres is capable of, our company decided to adopt it.
After seeing what PostgreSQL is capable of, our company decided to adopt it.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | jonah(dot)harris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Edison, NJ 08837 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/