Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

On 9/1/2007 10:27 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andy Astor wrote:
>> Well, as I've said earlier, I'm a big +1 for changing the name to Postgres.
>
>> For what it's worth, we put a naming poll on the postgres.enterprisedb.com
>> site. Out of 95 votes, 54% vote for a name change, 26% say no, and 18% don't
>> care. I invite this mailing list to vote its opinions, if you haven't
>> already (please don't vote multiple times). Clearly, it's just one
>> measurement, but in US politics, these kinds of numbers are called a
>> landslide.
>
> And typically not representative of the whole as I guarantee you most of
> us wouldn't have bothered to go to that poll. Myself included.
>
>>
>> Bruce and others have demonstrated crisply that the work involved is not so
>> great. I'm just one voice, but I think we should make the change and move
>> on.
>>
>> Andy
>
> Andy, the problem with your or my argument "for" changing the name is we
> have something directly to gain without consequence. CMD if it chooses
> could become Postgres, Inc, we already have the domain and the assumed
> business name in place.
>
> EDB gets to strengthen its brand significantly if the community changes
> its name.
>
> What needs to happen here is the community needs to look around as a
> whole and so far Bruce and Jan have provided zero reason beyond, "We
> really shouldn't have named it PostgreSQL because it was hard to
> pronounce". Which although carries some weight it is a little pebble
> compared to the effort it will take otherwise.

Do you have any clue how many countless hours of useless discussion this
name has cost us already? Unproductive hours that community members
could otherwise have spent doing something useful. And I guarantee you,
this nonsense will continue as long as the community as a whole is
clinging to the situation as it is, driven by the fear factor you and
others are using to encourage resisting change.

Sum that up and try to put a price tag on it. I am sure if you do this
seriously you will grossly exceed any costs the actual change could
possibly cause.

> I reassert that there is zero reason for the community to "need" to
> change its name. We simply officially provide that the name "Postgres"
> is an official abbreviation.

Do it the other way around please. The name Postgres is the original
project name. PostgreSQL was a buzzword enhanced marketing gag that we
will keep tolerating.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #