Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

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

Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 8/31/2007 6:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>> Ignoring the requirements of the communities in charge of the majority
>> of advocacy of the larger whole is bad idea.
>
> You entirely seem to ignore that quite some number of community members
> (me included) already abandoned this QL name monster and are referring
> to our product by its original, well known name Postgres.

No I am not ignoring it at all. I consider Postgres a valid nickname for
the project PostgreSQL. I see zero reason to go through the hassle of
changing everything for the sake of two bytes. If you want to call it
Postgres call it Postgres, add an entry to the FAQ that it is a valid
shortening of the name and call it good.

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

iD8DBQFG2JmMATb/zqfZUUQRAiAtAKCF3cTw9UT/faeJAhDVqim2BWVWHwCfafA1
zH/LgTT7pKd3JNhph4oidSc=
=gLSY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----