Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

On 8/30/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
> we have:
>
> 1) No change
> 2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative

+1

> 3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
> 4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
> 5) Change the name to "Postgres"
>
> I have ordered the items from least to most invasive. Given the
> discussion, I think no option is going to get unanimous approval, so no
> matter what we choose some people are going to be disappointed.
>
> I think we have already done #2 in FAQ item #1, so one approach would be
p
[...]

The way I feel Postgres should be perfectly legal short form of
PostgreSQL Relational Database Managament System. I.e. use
two forms: "PostgreSQL RDBMS" and "Postgres" interchangably.

Personally I like PostgreSQL name and I would hate to "drop it".
It is complex, yes, but in a nice technically advanced and warm
inside sort of way. Besides there are at least three other RDBMS
which embed "SQL" in their name. MySQL, SQL Server and SQLite.

(This is beside the point, but I guess that "SQL" in the name may
even attract people. Would that be if Firebird was called FireSQL,
it would attract more traction? Wild idea, but it may be that trailing
"SQL" had actually help gain some popularity?)

Then again I am all for popularising Postgres as the "short form"
of PostgreSQL RDBMS. I have heard too many people asking
about "Postgre", and I think the more Postgres name is visible,
the more people will make out the correct connection
"PostgreSQL is Postgres".

If we keep the "PostgreSQL RDBMS" as the long form -- package
names, brochures etc. will remain valid, since they refer to long
form. But by encouraging short form "Postgres" should promote
the name Postgres where it is most apropriate -- speeches,
presentations, documentation, discussions, etc.

Regards,
Dawid