| From: | "Dan Scott" <denials(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Christopher Petrilli" <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Ron Peterson" <ron(dot)peterson(at)yellowbank(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
| Date: | 2007-09-04 00:44:38 |
| Message-ID: | fbb0d11d0709031744s54ab68dbva6099d01a88ef077@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On 03/09/07, Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
<snip>
> 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
</snip>
If it's any consolation, DB2 (proper form - no slash) seems to be
burdened with a name that continues to suffer from branding confusion
with the defunct OS/2. Even IBMers get it wrong.
I don't expect they'll be changing the name, though.
--
Dan Scott
Laurentian University
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2007-09-04 00:48:48 | Re: [CORE] Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
| Previous Message | Ron Peterson | 2007-09-04 00:40:27 | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |