> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
> we have:
>
> 1) No change
+1. For non-English speakers, choosing "PostgreSQL" or "Postgres" does
make no difference from the marketing point of view since they are
foreign language for non-English speakers anyway. In another word,
changing to "Postgres" will give virtually no value to non-English
speakers, for example Japanese. Instead it will give us huge cost to
advertise the new name "Postgres" again. We have spent tons of effort
to make PostgreSQL popular in Japan since 1996, and have made the
current status of PostgreSQL in Japan (you know that PostgreSQL,
Oracle, MySQL have almost even share on Linux platforms in
Japan). Let's not to waste the work.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> 2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
> 3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
> 4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
> 5) Change the name to "Postgres"
>
> I have ordered the items from least to most invasive. Given the
> discussion, I think no option is going to get unanimous approval, so no
> matter what we choose some people are going to be disappointed.
>
> I think we have already done #2 in FAQ item #1, so one approach would be
> to choose #3 and see how we like it. The #3 change is the most minimal
> which still helps pronunciation. Over time you could migrate to #4 and
> #5 if desired. The good news is that all the alternatives are clearly
> recognizable as the same as "PostgreSQL".
>
> (I see little support for doing a change post-8.3, e.g. 9.0.)
>
> (This email is an attempt to refocus discussion on possible
> alternatives.)
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster