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

Re: The name of the game

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: The name of the game
Date: 2006-07-13 18:22:13
Message-ID: 44B68F55.6000901@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacypgsql-novice
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
>> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
>> with PostgreSQL:
>>
>> Cons for PostgreSQL:
>> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
>>
>> 1. Long domain name
> 
> It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring

Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view.

Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit?
ME: WWW.postgresql.org
Customer: What?
Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
Customer: Why the ql?

And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is 
difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being 
longer is relevant.

>> 2. PostgreSQL, Inc. and the perception that "they" are postgresql
>> (although that is very minute these days.) I do still run into it.
>> 3. Difficult to say
>> 4. PostgreSQL.Org is registered to Hub not the development group
>> 5. Changing the name will likely alienate a long time member and
>> co0-founder
>>
>> Pros for PostgreSQL:
>>
>> 1. The press knows us as that
>> 2. Everyone complains about the name, but everyone knows it
>> 3. It has been that way for 10 years
>> 4. Everyone calls it postgres anyway, so who cares?
> 
> There are a lot of items like graphics/documentation/code that we have aquired 
> over the years that all refer to PostgreSQL. These would all need to be 
> modified. 

Very good point!

> 
>> Problems with Postgres:
>>
>> 1. Postgresintl.com (Dave Cramer)
>> 2. Postgresinc.com (CMD)
>> 3. PervasivePostgres.com (Pervasive)
>>
> 
> There would be added confusion, as many software packages would now have to 
> say "works with postgres and postgresql" 

Yep.

> 
>> Pros for Postgres:
>>
>> 1. Short domain name
> 
> 2 fewer charactors?  again... not valid. 

I don't agree but that's ok :)

> 
>> 2. Goes back to our roots (kind of)
>> 3. Easier to say
>> 4. Domain name is registered to the development group
>>
> 
> Not exactly.  The .org domain is registered, but .net and maybe .us or .info 
> are registered to complete 3rd parties, who aiui are not exactly willing to 
> transfer those domain names to the project. 

Well frankly, for .us and info who the heck cares. I have yet to go to a 
website (except for slony.info) that is a .info by choice.

.Us? Again so what.

.Net - well it does point www.postgresql.org, so he may not be 
completely unwilling.

FYI postgresql.xxx suffers from similar problems with .info  and .us

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake






-- 

    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/



In response to

Responses

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2006-07-13 18:43:27
Subject: Re: The name of the game
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2006-07-13 17:44:20
Subject: Re: The name of the game

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2006-07-13 18:33:13
Subject: Re: 10 Years And Counting
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2006-07-13 17:44:20
Subject: Re: The name of the game

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