Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
От | Andrew Sullivan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20070828194001.GA1683@phlogiston.dyndns.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) (Robert Bernier <robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca>) |
Ответы |
Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL) |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:44:26PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote: > > This sounds like basing a decision on getting the most benefit with > the least amount of work. I am unaware of a better mechanism by which one decides which work to do. The important thing is what "most benefit" means; and that turns out to be hard to unpack. > I respectfully counter your argument by suggesting that in this > matter the effort, although significant, is justified by the > benefits. So what are they? That people can pronounce the name more easily? This discussion heaves into sight every now and then (this time, much to my chagrin, it's my fault. I'll know better than to make bad jokes in public in the future!). I agree that the name is unfortunate. But I just say "Postgres" most of the time, and people seem to know what I'm taking about -- and yet no Official Changing of Names has happened. The thing is, I keep hearing claims that the name is a problem significant enough to do work to change it. But why is it a problem? Marketing, apparently. Ok, then, we need some market research. I don't believe that the name itself is the biggest barrier -- just that the name is not "Oracle". If someone has _data_ (not a war story about the amusing last mispronunciation heard), I'd like to see it. > I argue that the exercise of debating and, if it comes to pass, > implementation has benefits that far outweighs the effort. How do you know that? So far, I have seen no serious discussion of what the costs of a name change might be, or what the benefits could be were we to adopt something else. There _will_ be confusion, work for package maintainers, nasty upgrade problems with oldbies who say, "Oh, I don't want Postgres; I want the SQL-engine one," and edits to the manual. Old links might break. Marketing materials would need to be reprinted (the project just bought a large trade-show banner, for instance; we throw it away under this plan). Logos need re-designing. These aren't free activities: they require at least time, and maybe cash money too. It seems to me that something more concrete than, "It won't cost much, and it'll have lotsa big benefits," is needed as an argument to back it up. A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are against all taxes for raising money to pay it off. --Alexander Hamilton
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: