Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > Nice attempt at a compromise.
>
> Thanks! :)
>
> > However, it ignores several points around a name change:
>
> > (1) JPUG, our single largest user community representing at least 25% of
> > PostgreSQL users worldwide, opposes a name change.
>
> This is not exactly true. Please see the archives. There's also no reason
> they can't use "PostgreSQL" as long as they like, and change when/if they
> are ready. Just like some people, groups, and companies use "Postgres" now.
>
> > (2) "Postgres" is really not that much better of a name. WTF does it
> > mean? If we're renaming, how about "AdvancedDB"? "AllYouEverNeedDB"? Or
> > "EnterpriseDB"? Oh, wait. ;-)
>
> It doesn't have to "mean" anything. The problem is that PostgreSQL is an
> ugly, geeky, unpronounceable, untranslatable mess. It's actually to our
> advantage to not have it mean anything. Google "firebird" for Exhibit A.
> (Oh and Googling "postgres" vs "postgresql" is meaningless - both have
> postgresql.org as the top hit, so Google already handles the alias)
What would be interesting would be to name part of the project
'Postgres'. Right now the database superuser is 'postgres', and no one
seems to be confused by that. I think we have enough people who like
both names that we should be able to come up with a compromise that
everyone likes. I am not sure what parts of the project we could name
"Postgres" instead of "PostgreSQL".
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +