Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

Andy Astor wrote:
> Commercial Benefit
> ------------------
> EnterpriseDB will receive zero commercial benefit from the name change.

All due respect Andy but that is simply not true. You have EnterpriseDB
Postgres, there is name correlation. That is business value. You know
better.

> Command Prompt may or may not. But none of this has anything to do with my
> opinion on this topic. EnterpriseDB has already taken the position that we
> wish to use Postgres in the name of the distribution we promote, and we have
> moved forward with that. I don't believe there will be any problem *or* any
> advantage if PostgreSQL/Postgres changes its name or not. I assure you all
> that my motivation is simply to make a better, simpler, more pronounceable
> name that doesn't call attention to a feature that is 10 years old.

I don't question your motivation (just to be clear) all I am saying is
that *our* motivation is marred about our obvious potential business
possibilities made by the change.

We need to be listening to the community as a whole and our community
that doesn't speak English natively is screaming loud and clear that
they don't want this to happen.

>
> Non-English Groups
> ------------------
> I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
> PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal mentioned
> that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
> perspective.

Yes but the current Spanish community versus the current Italian, French
and Japanese communities is a different matter in terms of size and
activity.

Sincerely.

Joshua D. Drake