From: | "Christopher Petrilli" <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Ron Peterson" <ron(dot)peterson(at)yellowbank(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
Date: | 2007-09-03 12:38:23 |
Message-ID: | 59d991c40709030538g6be6d2aqf62477513be593cd@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 9/3/07, Ron Peterson <ron(dot)peterson(at)yellowbank(dot)com> wrote:
> 2007-09-02_22:14:43-0400 Shashank Tripathi <shashank(dot)tripathi(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> > FWIW, everyone I have ever spoken to calls it Postgres.
>
> So if the name changes, it will be alright if everyone else continues to
> call it PostgreSQL.
Having used <whatevertheheckyouwannacallit> since the early 90s, and
the days pre-SQL with Quel, I've always called it Postgres, everyone
I've run into in the commercial/federal world who uses it calls it
Postgres. I've seen multiple people comment on how verbally it is
called Postgres, but in writing it's called PostgreSQL. Is it really
that hard to understand that this is a major issue among the
non-technical?
To put it quite bluntly, I've never been stopped from using Postgres
by a technical person; it has always been a manager. Often it involves
long winded explanations of why he's never heard of it, where it came
from, and sometimes, why it has a dumb (yes, dumb) name.
Every time I write anything, I have to go back and make sure I used to
dumb name, and not the one that makes sense. Today, in 2007, nobody is
going to suddenly assume that we don't support SQL, and while a
majority of the databases in the open source world are burdened with
SQL in their name, this isn't true in the commercial world:
* Oracle
* Sybase
* DB/2
* SQL Server
* Teradata
That's what people call them in the "open" world outside an
echo-chamber. At some point, they might say "Oracle 10g", though I've
never heard anyone say "DB/2 UDB", and truthfully never hear anyone
say "Sybase" in any form any more.
The argument about issues in other languages are moot.
Postgres/PostgreSQL are vaguely English words, and will always be
foreign to someone in Japan, regardless of which you choose. Extra
care will be taken inversely proportional to the lack of care in the
English-speaking world.
Last I looked around, we're the only community having this confusion
and discussion, which should tell you more than any one person's
opinion that it will continue to occur, over and over, until something
is done about it.
Better now than later.
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2007-09-03 13:19:12 | Re: A renaming analogy |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-09-03 12:23:49 | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |