| From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, "John Wang" <johncwang(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
| Date: | 2007-09-03 09:53:58 |
| Message-ID: | E5A13408-68CF-472F-A51A-CF2E4092C37B@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Sep 2, 2007, at 12:16 AM, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2007 13:57, John Wang wrote:
>> On 8/31/07, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> wrote:
>>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>>> That doesnt make it a bad name. There are several very popular
>>>> databases
>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>> have SQL in thier name.
>>>
>>> But none that insist on pronunciations like "Mice Q. L." for "MySQL"
>>> or "Microsofts Q. L. server" for "Microsoft SQL Server"
>>
>> Good point.
>
> *shrug* it's orthogonal to the original posters assertation though.
As the OP, I'll disagree. :)
For all 3, the SQL portion is used to indicate that the product/
project is a database, while the rest of the name provides context on
who it's from or what it's about:
SQLite: lightweight database
MS SQL Server: Database server from MS
MySQL: this is "My" database engine, it does what I want
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vincent | 2007-09-03 09:58:37 | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2007-09-03 09:39:59 | Re: A renaming analogy |