Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:

> I think we are getting a little silly here. If the preferred project name is
> changed, nothing will _have_ to get thrown out, changed, etc. PostgreSQL can
> remain an acceptable synonym from here until the end of time. There will
> be little to no confusion - a simple FAQ item should cover it:
>
> Q: Why do some places use "Postgres" and some use "PostgreSQL"?

Greg, with respect. This is bogus.

1. Nobody reads FAQs except the people who wrote it
2. In marketing, a name is extremely important.

PostgreSQL does not equal Postgres

All of those materials will need to be reprinted, remanufactured, and
redesigned. Otherwise we look like a bunch of hacks, and not in the good
way.

We will also spend many hours declaring to people:

1. Why we changed
2. Did we think it was a good change
3. Re-educating press
4. Constantly fixing our own mistakes for the people that have been
doing this for a decade.

Joshua D. Drake


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1vn+ATb/zqfZUUQRAn4VAKCZ0aXkAxLf/wwTq0d4tx2OZHKNfgCfeJs4
iC0DjaTg+Ickf9enjFvOpOc=
=ZO4g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----