Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

Bruce Momjian a écrit :
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>>> If the immediate response to someone who has problems with their
>>>> postgres system on IRC / email weren't "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!"
>>>> that'd be less of a problem. It's an ugly blemish on what are otherwise
>>>> very helpful peer support fora.
>>> this usually only happens when somebody uses "postgre" - never seen
>>> people complain about "postgres" ...
>>>
>> The reason people assume "Postgre" is the right short form is
>> because that's what the current capitalization "PostgreSQL"
>> implies.
>>
>> If the name is changed to "PostgreS" you may still
>> have the problem. With "Postgres" it won't be.
>>
>> If the name is changed to "PostgresQL" the "postgre"
>> problem would probably go away - but I think most would
>> agree that changing to "PostgresQL" is rather silly.
>
> Consider that with PostgresQL, URLs, email list names, postgresql.conf,
> searches don't have to change at all, and we have something that is more
> clearly pronounceable.
>

So the product name will be Postgres, the binary is already postgres and
the configuration file will still have the name postgresql.conf. This
will be great to explain at training courses. This will cause confusion.
This will cause questions on mailing lists and booths.

I'm still against the name change but I rather prefer a complete change
than a change on the more easy strings to "search and replace".

Regards.

--
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
http://lfs.traduc.org/
http://docs.postgresqlfr.org/ -->