Re: Change the name

I¹ll just add a couple of quick comments:

1. Regarding the FAQ change, that¹s great. I¹m glad something¹s been done.
2. At some point way early on in this thread, Josh Berkus said the largest
community has already voted no. I don¹t understand that comment. As best as
I can tell, it¹s about 2-to-1 in favor of the change.
3. For what it¹s worth, I agree with Chris Travers that Core should make the
call. But I also accept that that¹s not how it works at this time. So be it.
4. I also agree with Markus below, when he says ³a slow migration away from
PostgreSQL is the only option, as this is an open source project, not a
centralized, well managed company.² I actually do believe that a slow
migration is appropriate for all concerned parties, since ‹ as Josh Drake
points out ‹ there¹s a ton of other stuff to do.
5. Now that Postgres is an officially acceptable substitute, EnterpriseDB
will begin migrating its terminology to ³Postgres² when referring to the
world¹s most advanced open source database project.

Andy

On 9/15/07 4:21 AM, "Markus Schiltknecht" <markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> > Unfortunatly I took a fair amount of sales and marketing classes in
>> college,
>
> Why should that be unfortunate? :-) Anyway...
>
>> > so I guess I have to chime in here. The argument against it is weakening >>
the
>> > brand, and adding confusion to the market place. . We already suffer from
>> > this now, and promoting two names only makes this worse.
>
> We *still* suffer from this, despite having promoted PostgreSQL for long
> enough. From that very same marketing perspective, I'd say it's about
> time to clarify and shorten the name, so as to strengthen the brand.
>
>> > Honestly I can't believe that people would think the solution to having a
>> poor
>> > project name is to have two project names.
>
> We already *have* at least two (PostgreSQL and Postgres) commonly used
> names. Let's get rid of one of them!
>
>> > Especially when the two project
>> > names really means we continue on with four project names, as people
>> continue
>> > to use postgres-sequal and postgre.
>
> ..which isn't any worse than now.
>
>> > Furthermore, it is obvious that an FAQ
>> > entry cannot solve this problem, if it could, we wouldn't have the problem
>> to
>> > begin with, since the "how to pronounce" question has been there for years,
>> > along with an MP3 example.
>
> The FAQ change isn't meant as a final solution, but it's a first step
> towards "Postgres".
>
> IMO a slow migration away from PostgreSQL is the only option, as this is
> an open source project, not a centralized, well managed company.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>