Re: Using Postgres as an alias

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Derek Rodner wrote:
> >>> In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot.
> >> This is assuming the name of the project has changed. It hasn't. The
> >> name of this project is PostgreSQL.
> >
> > But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> > widely used.
>
> I am unsure of the importance of this point. The name of the project is
> PostgreSQL, not Postgres. If the alias doesn't get used, who cares.

Well, if no one uses the alias then there is more motivation to make an
official name change, which I thought you didn't want.

> >> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
> >> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...
> >
> > Well, actually, I see it the opposite where you brow-beat folks until
> > you think they will quit. (I am not a quitter, which I think you know.)
> > And I certainly do think the name change will finally be made, so I
> > don't feel like I have to subvert anything.
> >
>
> Well at least you are honest :) but consider that (I am not a quitter,
> which I think you know.)
>
> So you and I are going to be at this *a long* time.

No, you will have to give up eventually. ;-) I can see which way the
wind is blowing, and I think you can too. ;-)

> > I thought it would not be a controversial change because I already
> > stated I wanted to make the alias more visible and no one objected. Now
> > I have a few objections and a lot of people who think it is a good idea.
> >
>
> If you review the thread it appears that the equation is similar to that
> of the name change... e.g; no clear majority.

Yes perhaps 3:1 or 4:1 for the alias, so yea, pretty similar.

> > Frankly, if the alias takes hold we might not need to make the full name
> > change -- supressing this idea now might actually hasten the name
> > change.
>
> >> The community "just" accepted the FAQ change, and now you want to start
> >> this?
> >>
> >> Let it lay.
> >
> > Again, why shut down the discussion?
>
> Because.. silence is not approval the longer this thread goes on, the
> more likely it will only be the very few participating. Likely the few
> on core that participate and the few long time contributors such as myself.
>
> Which means, it will never end, and continue to polarize external
> community and people will just give up. That isn't good.

Seems like people are still contributing to the discussion. I have
rarely seen things die if there are substantive ideas, which I think
this is one.

> Brow beating is not good. It is negative and counter productive. You
> won't win anything, but you certainly may cause a lot of antagonism (as
> may I with my alternate view).
>
> Note that this may be worth while in the future, but all things come in
> time and I don't think this is the right time.

I thought you thought the FAQ alias usage was OK? I also don't see
waiting as fruitful.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +