Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:36:47 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ...
> > postgresql.net is available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we
> > are keeping that domain"clean" for any future stuff we want to do
> > with the core project ...
>
> I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
> risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to
> <project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the
> only objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is
> too long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.
>
> Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> <project>.pgfoundry.org
> <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> point to the same place?

My first vote would have been for postgresql.net, but I think
<project>.projects.postgresql.org makes the most sense. If I wasn't
"in the know" I wouldn't associate
<something>.pgfoundry.(pgfoundry|postgresql).org with a PostgreSQL
related projects by looking at the URL only.

As for the "length" of the URL, I think any developer or user
of PostgreSQL is knowledgeable enough to take advantage of browser
bookmarks. :)

I'm definitely against using 'pgfoundry.org' as I believe sub-projects
should all fall under the currently used postgresql.org domain.

Another thing to think about is search engine placement. Most search
engines give higher listings to keywords that are in the domain name.
While people will search for 'postgres' and/or 'postgresql' no one
is going to come up with 'pgfoundry' on their own.

---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
http://frank.wiles.org
---------------------------------