Re: Changing the name

Scott

I think you would be hard pressed to find many who LIKE the name. But it is
too deeply entrenched to change it now. I have no doubt that it does have a
small negative effect in brand recognition and product takeup. But this
would be miniscule when compared to the severe loss of brand awareness if
you changed it.

The name was conceived by techies for techies. It¹s a mouthful. It¹s not
catchy; but it has traction.

I usually call it Postgres when speaking about it but use the full name in
print. This is no different to Microsoft SQL Server usually being called
ŒSequel Server¹. And I¹ve heard Josh Berkus call MySQL ŒMy Sequel¹.

Familial name are common in most language. e.g. I usually get called Rob or
Bob, not Robert. (My wife has a few other names for me but are not fit for
publication.)

I have no idea what they were thinking when they came up with the elephant.
And ³The world¹s most advanced open source database² is a mouthful.

Let¹s face it: From a marketing perspective, we are our own worst enemies.
But the fact remains that PostgreSQL is a brilliant product and the only way
is up!

So that is my last word on the subject. If it comes up on this forum again,
I promise to not make a comment. :)

On 23/1/10 10:25 AM, "Scott Bailey" <artacus(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:

>> Yes, they can (At least the 90% of the ones i know) and they say
>> Postgre-sql or postgres
>
> It's actually Post-gres-QL. I don't have a strong preference between
> Postgres and PostgreSQL. But it grates on me when people pronounce it
> Post-gree or Post-gree-SQL. I guess I'm just an irritable sort of guy.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/community/survey.33
>
> Scott

Regards

Rob Napier