Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

From: Ron Peterson <ron(dot)peterson(at)yellowbank(dot)com>
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
Date: 2007-08-28 01:40:29
Message-ID: 20070828014029.GA3047@yellowbank.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
2007-08-27_17:37:19-0400 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>:
> Ron Peterson notes:
> > It's google'able.  Think of all of the documentation out there which
> > refers to PostgreSQL.  When people start searching for 'postgres'
> > they'll get virtually nothing.

> Sure they do: 5.7 million results, including postgresql.org as the
> first hit.  "Postgres" is the name the great majority of people use
> anyway.

5.7 million is not "virtually nothing", but you can't say the "great
majority" of people use the term "postgres" when "postgresql" returns 27
million hits.  Call me daft, but I prefer to increase my odds of finding
relevant results by a factor of four or more.

> It's not so much a marketing effort as realizing that our current name 
> is unwieldy, prone to errors in spelling, translation, and pronunciation, 
> and is quickly changed to "Postgres" by most anyway.

Why do you say it is changed to Postgres by most?  Google, at least,
seems to disagree.  That said, I will say that I have run across a fair
number of people, most of whom know little or nothing about PostgreSQL,
who tend to use the term "Postgres".  Considering that PostgreSQL has
been the official name for quite some time, it is certainly noteworthy
that people still gravitate to another name.

> > Maybe some people don't like PostgreSQL, but why assume everyone
> > likes 'Postgres' better.  I don't.

> What's your alternative?

I like the status quo.  If I _were_ going to change the name, I would
wait until a major point release; and for the purpose of not appearing
fickle, I'd try to market the name change with a better slogan than
"PostgreSQL is now now Postgres - Because PostgreSQL is hard to spell!"
I think changing the name of a product is a really big deal, and it
needs to be tied to something significant, or it appears flighty, and
makes the project seem a little untethered.

I also think Postgres sounds too much like Ingres.  Nothing against
Ingres or PostgreSQL's heritage, but it sounds anachronistic to me.

That said, there are a lot of people who have put a lot more into
PostgreSQL than I have, and I would certainly defer to their opinion on
this.

-- 
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Bernd HelmleDate: 2007-08-28 08:26:46
Subject: Re: mysql proxy
Previous:From: Ron MayerDate: 2007-08-28 00:30:30
Subject: Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group