Re: 8.5 vs. 9.0, Postgres vs. PostgreSQL

On 01/22/2010 10:57 AM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> * Brendan Jurd<direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> [100122 10:29]:
>
>
>> Holy query language, Batman!
>>
>> Do you mean to tell me that the "uninformed masses" you interact with
>> have an understanding of what "SQL" means?
>>
>> I am skeptical of this claim, but if true, you must have access to the
>> most spectacularly informed "uninformed masses" on the planet.
>>
> I can't speak for Mark, but the "uniformed masses" I interact with tend
> to be the guys looking for (and authorizing) solutions in small-medium
> business segment... And Microsoft has done the "education" for us and
> automatically associated this unknown "SQL" with "a big database"...
> So despite that they have no idea what "SQL" actually means, or where it
> came from, it's got the desired association.
>
> So, my neck of the woods ain't necessarily yours, but...
>

Exactly. People know where SQL fits in the product map. They probably do
NOT know what it stands for, but they don't really care. They pay
professional technical people to understand the details.

How many people know what SONAR, RADAR, or SCUBA stand for? This doesn't
seem to stop them from being able to use the word effectively.

MS SQL, MySQL, SQLite - do they have advocacy problems due to the SQL in
their name? I think it is the opposite. SQL in the name almost grants
legitimacy to them as products. Dropping the SQL has the potential to
increase confusion. What is a Postgres? :-)

Cheers,
mark

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