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

Re: Using Postgres as an alias

From: "Joshua(dot)Kramer" <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net>
To: pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Using Postgres as an alias
Date: 2007-09-27 17:21:17
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.64.0709271310310.3978@home-av-server.home-av (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy
> There is not once person on this list arguing one way or the other that
> doesn't have "some" stake in the name. The business has nothing to do

Ok, let me be the first.  I have no stake in the name... and honestly, I 
haven't read the entire thread because I didn't have the time to do so. 
But I'm kind of confused as to why it's such a big deal, or - as many 
others wonder - why people are wasting so many neural cycles (which could 
be used for economic output) on this.

Let me present this analogy: MS SQL Server.  In all of the official 
documentation, Microsoft refers to it as its proper name.  However, 
whilst discussing it with other IT folks, you'll hear it referred to as 
everything from "Sequel Server" to "SQL Server" to "Squeal Server" to 
"Squalid Server".

Likewise, the PG documentation should keep referring to it as PostgreSQL, 
and people will refer to it as whatever they like.  There isn't a current, 
competing product with a name like Postgres, so there should be no 
confusion when someone says "Postgres" as to exactly what they're talking 
about.

For those who have pronunciation issues, how do they pronounce:

Microsoft SQL Server
MySQL
PostgreSQL

Cheers,
-J


In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Jonah H. HarrisDate: 2007-09-27 17:25:00
Subject: Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.
Previous:From: John WangDate: 2007-09-27 17:19:02
Subject: Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.

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