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

Re: Impact of a name change on third parties (was: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL))

From: Shane Ambler <pgsql(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz>
To: Gabriele Bartolini <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Impact of a name change on third parties (was: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL))
Date: 2007-08-31 10:26:25
Message-ID: 46D7ECD1.3080504@Sheeky.Biz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
Gabriele Bartolini wrote:

> 
> Well ... I do not consider it to be silly at all, Greg. That's your point of
> view, but I am a bit skeptic and personally doubt that people would buy a
> PostgreSQL t-shirt when a Postgres t-shirt is out there.

Maybe - though some may want to get the last of the "SQL" t-shirts as a 
collectible thing - a part of history

The real question here would be what quantities do people have of these 
products/pamphlets on hand? I have the impression that most gear is made 
up to get ready for a conference/show with no huge leftover budgeted for.

A rough estimate from those holding stock??


> Also, pens with PostgreSQL on it when the database is called Postgres ...
> let me say frankly ... are a bit harder to sell. And I do not feel silly at
> all. Just pragmatic and practical. I have noticed that both the French and
> the Japanese Users groups (two of the majors in the world) share the same
> concerns.
> 
> The issue here is that we have invested time and money (I repeat) in
> preparing this stuff to be sold and help self-finance marketing and
> promotion both locally and globally and I believe it is not wise to change
> the name with no proper campaign and time to get the most out of them in
> terms of ROI.
> 
> As I said, I would much prefer "Postgres" as a name, but I believe that - as
> every transition process requires - we setup an informative and transparent
> campaign to let users organise themselves. It is more respectful that way.
> 
> I really respect the core team opinion, and if they thing Postgres is the
> name to adopt, I will go for it. But I hope we allow at least a 2 years
> period transition.
> 

I would think 2 years may be a bit long for a transition.

Historically the project started as Postgres - the SQL was added after 
it left Berkeley to signify that the new buzz word of the time was 
incorporated into the release. Now we can say that we want to honor the 
original heritage of the project as we know that everyone assumes that a 
RDBMS has SQL capabilities.


Just another 2c in the pot.



-- 

Shane Ambler
pgSQL(at)Sheeky(dot)Biz

Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz

In response to

Responses

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2007-08-31 10:39:00
Subject: Re: All Wisconsin Circuit Courts now using PostgreSQL
Previous:From: Raymond O'DonnellDate: 2007-08-31 10:10:07
Subject: Re: Informal pronunciation poll

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