On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Kevin Brown wrote:
> Scott Lamb wrote:
> > I'm grateful to RedHat for the time they've put into PostgreSQL, and
> > they can call it whatever they damn well please.
>
> I agree that they can, and it is their decision.
>
> But by doing so their efforts at promoting their database do nothing
> to help spread the adoption of PostgreSQL. That is, they do nothing
> to improve the mindshare of PostgreSQL. In fact, their efforts
> *hinder* PostgreSQL's mindshare.
How? Do they have a team of non-paid developesr working on their code?
> I would be much happier if they called RHDB something like "RedHat
> PostgreSQL Server", just like they call their distribution "RedHat
> Linux".
And if, at some point in the future, they drop PostgreSQL and take on
MySQL? Or Oracle? I'd rather have that kinda hidden behind the name
myself ... that kinda thing would do more damage then not naming it RedHat
PostgreSQL in the first place, no? :)
BTW, can someone explain to me how this whole threads helps us in any way?
Just cause you don't like the name, they aren't going to change it ... so
wouldn't that energy be better spent in other aresa/