Now that I have landed at EnterpriseDB and joined the community, a number of high level people have told me they love the Postgres naming over PostgreSQL because they told me it is a lot easier to say and a nice name simplification of the OSS project that is experiencing nice growth and expansion. So I vote for Postgres.
z.
From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Gavin M. Roy Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 9:04 PM To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
I decided to do a little photoshop work in case there was enough of a consensus at some point in the near future to get the ball rolling.
Decibel! wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:22:50PM -0400, Ron Peterson wrote: >> 2007-08-28_10:53:41-0400 Decibel! < decibel@decibel.org>: >> >>> The google hits argument is no reason not to change the name. >> It is. When people start searching for information using the term >> "postgres" they will be missing out on the vast majority of available >> information for years. > > Has anyone actually looked at what those 27M PostgreSQL hits are? I'm > betting that 90% of them are duplicate copies of mailing list traffic. > If you exclude content generated by us (which doesn't count because we > can change the name via sed), I'm betting there's just barely 5M web > pages about us (which would account for all the Postgres hits).
The only thing that matters is the first 10-12 hits on the first page.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly