Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: "Decibel!" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
Date: 2007-08-31 22:07:54
Message-ID: 46D8913A.7040309@Yahoo.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy

On 8/31/2007 4:53 AM, Decibel! wrote:
> Yes, there's printed material that will have to be re-done. Big
> whoop. If SPI and the corporate entities don't want to handle that
> cost, I'll put up $500 of my own. If names didn't get changed because
> of marketing material, we'd still be calling microwave ovens "radar
> range"s.

Nobody has to "redo" anything at all if they don't want to. Printed
material in the software industry tends to age and become shelfware
nobody is ever looking at again. As long as all future material is using
Postgres alone, the change will go along just fine.

Granted, the time was much shorter, but where do you find any references
to Postgres95 these days?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2007-08-31 22:21:29 Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2007-08-31 21:23:20 Re: All Wisconsin Circuit Courts now using PostgreSQL