Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL

On 01/22/2010 09:52 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> Well, this *was* posted to -hackers and not -advocacy, but
> advocacy, mind share, and many other non-hacking-on-the-base-code things
> matter too. And frankly, our name is one of our *top* problems.
> Perhaps you've never had to explain to non-technical people how to
> pronounce it? Or sheepishly explained why we have such a lame,
> geeky sounding portmanteau? Or assured people that saying "Postgres"
> is perfectly fine, and that everyone says it that way anyway?
>

I do not read -advocacy, so I probably missed the "important" discussion
on this subject...

I cannot see how the current name is a "top" problem in any priority
scheme I care about. I like the current name, and the *infrequent* time
the question comes up, it gives me the opportunity to summarize the
history of PostgreSQL, and show people how PostgreSQL is a mature
product that has earned a place in software history.

How this could be a problem? I don't understand. I do not believe people
would choose or not choose a product based on whether they happen to
pronounce it correctly from the start.

Most importantly, changing the name back to "Postgres" does not actually
make the product better in any material way, nor does it improve
understanding of what the product does. Having "SQL" in the name, makes
it clear what the product is. We use Atlassian products, and one of the
first complaints we get is that people don't implicitly know what
products like "Bamboo", "Confluence", "Crucible", "FishEye", or "JIRA"
do. They cannot map the products in their head because they have no
context. Calling it "PostgreSQL", makes it very clear to the uninformed
masses where the product fits in a product map. Tell an executive of a
company "Postgres", and they would ask "what is it?" Tell them
"PostgreSQL", and they'll say "is that like Oracle?" The second is
hugely more valuable.

I don't want to open the discussion, because I like things the way they
are, and think the PostgreSQL developers are doing an excellent job on
the high priority items. PostgreSQL is really one of the greatest open
source projects out there. I love it!

I just can't see a statement like "our name is one of our *top*
problems" go by uncontested. It is false in every way I can think of
considering it. Perhaps *some* people have an issue with it. Perhaps
these people are enough to pressure a change against the rest who care
more about performance, reliability, and features, than a name. But,
ultimately, the people working on the performance, reliability, and
features, are the people that are making PostgreSQL the success that it
is today. The name will not and should not increase adoption. Well, at
least in my not so humble opinion.

Back to the exciting live standby features and such please! I'm very
much looking forward to seeing them in a release. *These* features, I
can "sell" from an advocacy perspective. :-)

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke<mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>