Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

2007-08-28_10:53:41-0400 Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>:

> The google hits argument is no reason not to change the name.

It is.  When people start searching for information using the term
"postgres" they will be missing out on the vast majority of available
information for years.

It's also an argument against the OP's assertion that most people use
the name "Postgres" rather than "PostgreSQL".

> Folks, please stop talking about spelling, because that's *not* the
> issue here at all.

I was merely poking a little fun with a caricature, but OK: "PostgreSQL
is now Postgres! - Because we don't know how to pronounce PostgreSQL!"
IMHO, that still makes PostgreSQL advocacy efforts sound rather amateur.
I don't think projects as large and important and PostgreSQL should be
rebranded without devoting serious attention to the details, market
perception, etc.

> I see no reason why we can't just silently make the change and let it
> be.

Because it's not a small matter.  Maybe PostgreSQL never should have
been the name, but it happened, time has passed, and we're in a
different place now.

I'm really not that opposed to changing the name, but I think this
effort is being promoted too glibly; without enough serious
consideration given to the consequences.  "Forget about the effort",
"forget about google", "let's vote on slashdot", etc.

If this were 9.0, and there were a big reason for this to be 9.0, that
might be a good time for a name change.  I just disagree that this
can/should be done "silently" without any fanfare and with no real
justification other than helping the tongue tied.  No one knows how to
pronounce "Linux" either - is that hurting adoption?

Whatever my little opinion might be, though, I still think the big dogs
should decide this.

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/