Обсуждение: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency
Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to use "Postgres" alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the documentation and other written resources. A change along that line has already been made in the FAQ. Many points have been made recently on the name of the project or the product, but the fact is that it will always be one or the other at any particular time. It's fine to have alternative names. But keep in mind that the purpose of documentation is to convey information, not to make subtle points about naming issues. If you want to make points about naming issues, write a nonsubtle document about it. Others have also made points that it is OK to use acronyms in place of the full name, and "Postgres" could be that, or that it's like Coke vs Coca-Cola. Nevertheless, any writing resource or technical editor will tell you that you need to be consistent. If you want to use an acronym, you introduce it once, and then you use it all the time. And if you write an article about beverages, you will use either Coke or Coca-Cola throughout, not both. If the terminology or the acronyms are not clear, you explain it at the beginning, and readers will look it up there. I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming issue near the beginning. But the rest of the document should use one name consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing. Also consider that many of our written resources are not read linearly, so it becomes even more important to use consistent terminology that does not require much context to understand. So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to use "Postgres"
> alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the documentation and other
> written resources. A change along that line has already been made in the
> FAQ.
> I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming issue near
> the beginning. But the rest of the document should use one name
> consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing. Also consider that
> many of our written resources are not read linearly, so it becomes even more
> important to use consistent terminology that does not require much context to
> understand.
>
> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted.
>
+1
Sincerely,
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
iD8DBQFHBnSkATb/zqfZUUQRAnzIAJoCXVkeH9xioB0xEy4jWmhN8iCE5QCgpFQN
HY0MrmdBT63sZ8uFIS75aL0=
=f8I/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:22:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to use > "Postgres" alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the > documentation and other written resources. A change along that line > has already been made in the FAQ. > > Many points have been made recently on the name of the project or > the product, but the fact is that it will always be one or the other > at any particular time. It's fine to have alternative names. But > keep in mind that the purpose of documentation is to convey > information, not to make subtle points about naming issues. If you > want to make points about naming issues, write a nonsubtle document > about it. +1 > Others have also made points that it is OK to use acronyms in place > of the full name, and "Postgres" could be that, or that it's like > Coke vs Coca-Cola. > > Nevertheless, any writing resource or technical editor will tell you > that you need to be consistent. If you want to use an acronym, you > introduce it once, and then you use it all the time. And if you > write an article about beverages, you will use either Coke or > Coca-Cola throughout, not both. If the terminology or the acronyms > are not clear, you explain it at the beginning, and readers will > look it up there. > > I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming > issue near the beginning. But the rest of the document should use > one name consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing. > Also consider that many of our written resources are not read > linearly, so it becomes even more important to use consistent > terminology that does not require much context to understand. > > So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted. That, or (my preference) make the change larger. I think it's significant that the vast majority of compatible software has some variant of Postgres and *not* PostgreSQL in the name. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:22:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to use
>> "Postgres" alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the
>> documentation and other written resources. A change along that line
>> has already been made in the FAQ.
>>
>> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted.
>
> That, or (my preference) make the change larger. I think it's
> significant that the vast majority of compatible software has some
> variant of Postgres and *not* PostgreSQL in the name.
I have seen no evidence of this.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Cheers,
> David.
- --
=== 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
iD8DBQFHBoXhATb/zqfZUUQRAn76AJwIUIuHizLFSpqLoJYQo0c7JF0CJwCdHu8E
5tnkPv4UwCXnubexTWwiRlI=
=2Ufl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 11:43:45AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > David Fetter wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:22:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to > >> use "Postgres" alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the > >> documentation and other written resources. A change along that > >> line has already been made in the FAQ. > >> > > >> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be > >> reverted. > > > > That, or (my preference) make the change larger. I think it's > > significant that the vast majority of compatible software has some > > variant of Postgres and *not* PostgreSQL in the name. > > I have seen no evidence of this. For evidence, take a look at the "Products" section of the Postgres Weekly News. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 11:43:45AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> David Fetter wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:22:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to
>>>> use "Postgres" alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the
>>>> documentation and other written resources. A change along that
>>>> line has already been made in the FAQ.
>>>>
>>>> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be
>>>> reverted.
>>> That, or (my preference) make the change larger. I think it's
>>> significant that the vast majority of compatible software has some
>>> variant of Postgres and *not* PostgreSQL in the name.
>> I have seen no evidence of this.
>
> For evidence, take a look at the "Products" section of the Postgres
> Weekly News.
I just read through all products sections in the PostgreSQL weekly news
from 07-22-07 to 09-30-07. Of products that mention PostgreSQL versus
Postgres in their release title, there is only *one* that mentions
Postgres and that is EnterpriseDB.
All others mention PostgreSQL or neither (such as PgAdmin or PgPool).
PostgreSQL Maestro 7.9 released.
MS Access to PostgreSQL Converter 2.0 released.
Another PostgreSQL Diff Tool 1.0.0_beta26 released.
PostgreSQL Data Wizard 7.8 released.
SE-PostgreSQL 8.2.4-1.0 released.
Entityspaces for PostgreSQL released.
AM Software Design has opened up PostgreSQL Community Forums.
EnterpriseDB Postgres released.
SchemaCrawler 5.1 for PostgreSQL released.
Another PostgreSQL Diff Tool 1.0.0_beta24 released
MicroOLAP Database Designer 1.2.1 for PostgreSQL released.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Cheers,
> David.
- --
=== 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
iD8DBQFHBo3UATb/zqfZUUQRAhmdAJ0RFomIp9Wd2GHOZGfJh2TbXsvGBwCeLiQF
Myzu7Nyt0LlTxO0ui2tkIqo=
=m1QT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:17:40PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > David Fetter wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 11:43:45AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> David Fetter wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:22:01PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >>>> Some of you may have noticed that there was a move proposed to > >>>> use "Postgres" alongside "PostgreSQL" as a product name in the > >>>> documentation and other written resources. A change along that > >>>> line has already been made in the FAQ. > >>>> > >>>> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be > >>>> reverted. > >>> That, or (my preference) make the change larger. I think it's > >>> significant that the vast majority of compatible software has some > >>> variant of Postgres and *not* PostgreSQL in the name. > >> I have seen no evidence of this. > > > > For evidence, take a look at the "Products" section of the Postgres > > Weekly News. > > I just read through all products sections in the PostgreSQL weekly news > from 07-22-07 to 09-30-07. Nice job of careful cherry-picking, but I'm not buying it. Cheers, D -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:17:40PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be
>>>>>> reverted.
>>>>> That, or (my preference) make the change larger. I think it's
>>>>> significant that the vast majority of compatible software has some
>>>>> variant of Postgres and *not* PostgreSQL in the name.
>>>> I have seen no evidence of this.
>>> For evidence, take a look at the "Products" section of the Postgres
>>> Weekly News.
>> I just read through all products sections in the PostgreSQL weekly news
>> from 07-22-07 to 09-30-07.
>
> Nice job of careful cherry-picking, but I'm not buying it.
It is your news David, written in black and white. Feel free to review
them yourself and post a counter. I would be interested in anything I
missed.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Cheers,
> D
- --
=== 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
iD8DBQFHBo+zATb/zqfZUUQRAt9yAKCKMJGWII3WkFzhBINqRsRs0jrnkgCfc8dE
POi/0pATD1IhTYVFdqlCbdo=
=xL1Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > I believe both the FAQ and the documentation do explain the naming issue near > the beginning. But the rest of the document should use one name > consistently, or it will just look silly and confusing. Also consider that > many of our written resources are not read linearly, so it becomes even more > important to use consistent terminology that does not require much context to > understand. > > So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be reverted. -1 It's a compromise, a single step of a slow migration (which I still see as the only reasonable option). While I certainly agree that such documents should strive for consistent naming in general, I think it's absolutely acceptable for an open source project to break with that rule during such a migration. As pointed out i.e. by Bruce, confusion between the two names isn't that big. Regards Markus
Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > It's a compromise, a single step of a slow migration (which I still > see as the only reasonable option). That assumes that there is somewhere to migrate to. But there isn't. The renaming has been rejected. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Markus Schiltknecht wrote: > > It's a compromise, a single step of a slow migration (which I still > > see as the only reasonable option). > > That assumes that there is somewhere to migrate to. But there isn't. > The renaming has been rejected. Amazing how you came to that conclusion, and I will not reargue that point here. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +