Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

On Friday 31 August 2007 04:53, Decibel! wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Again, long term vs. short term. If we don't change it we will be
> > having
> > awkward pronunciations forever, and taking the marketing hit for that
> > forever.  There is going to be short term pain, but long term gain.
>
> This isn't even about only awkward pronunciation... PostgreSQL is,
> flat-out, a *bad* name. It's akin to Ford calling a car
> "MustangELECTRICSTART" because the car has an electric starter.
> Perhaps having SQL support was novel at some point in Postgres
> history, but it's certainly not today.
>

That doesnt make it a bad name. There are several very popular databases that
have SQL in thier name.

> Someone mentioned companies that are already using Postgres instead
> of PostgreSQL. I think it says something that the last 3 companies
> that have started up with PostgreSQL (Greenplum, Pervasive,
> EnterpriseDB) have shunned the name. Heck, Greenplum and EnterpriseDB
> have shunned the name multiple times (names that don't contain
> PostgreSQL but could: Greenplum, MPP, Bizgres, EnterpriseDB,
> EnterpriseDB Advanced Server, EnterpriseDB Postgres). Oh, I forgot
> ExtenDB, too.
>

It says that they were concerned about the trademark issues around postgresql,
and were concerned about not being able to differentiate thier products from
the community postgresql product.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL