From: | Andy Astor <andy(dot)astor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
Date: | 2007-09-01 11:18:48 |
Message-ID: | C2FEC2D8.21356%andy.astor@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Well, as I've said earlier, I'm a big +1 for changing the name to Postgres.
With due respect to all of those on both sides of the issue, IMHO Postgres
is a better name. It's simple. It's pronounceable. It's doesn't brag about
something that was new *10* years ago. It can be implemented easily, with
FAQs to resolve confusion. It doesn't have to be everywhere all at once (see
choice #6 from earlier in the thread). And by my reckoning, most people seem
to want it.
For what it's worth, we put a naming poll on the postgres.enterprisedb.com
site. Out of 95 votes, 54% vote for a name change, 26% say no, and 18% don't
care. I invite this mailing list to vote its opinions, if you haven't
already (please don't vote multiple times). Clearly, it's just one
measurement, but in US politics, these kinds of numbers are called a
landslide.
Bruce and others have demonstrated crisply that the work involved is not so
great. I'm just one voice, but I think we should make the change and move
on.
Andy
On 8/31/07 6:43 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On 8/31/2007 6:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>> Ignoring the requirements of the communities in charge of the majority
>>> of advocacy of the larger whole is bad idea.
>>
>> You entirely seem to ignore that quite some number of community members
>> (me included) already abandoned this QL name monster and are referring
>> to our product by its original, well known name Postgres.
>
> No I am not ignoring it at all. I consider Postgres a valid nickname for
> the project PostgreSQL. I see zero reason to go through the hassle of
> changing everything for the sake of two bytes. If you want to call it
> Postgres call it Postgres, add an entry to the FAQ that it is a valid
> shortening of the name and call it good.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
> - --
>
> === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
> PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
> UNIQUE NOT NULL
> Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFG2JmMATb/zqfZUUQRAiAtAKCF3cTw9UT/faeJAhDVqim2BWVWHwCfafA1
> zH/LgTT7pKd3JNhph4oidSc=
> =gLSY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Peterson | 2007-09-01 12:16:47 | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-08-31 22:54:56 | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |