Re: PostgreSQL vs. Postgres labeling inconsistency

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Fetter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:17:40PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>>>>>> So I think what is being proposed is wrong and needs to be
>>>>>> reverted.
>>>>> That, or (my preference) make the change larger. I think it's
>>>>> significant that the vast majority of compatible software has some
>>>>> variant of Postgres and *not* PostgreSQL in the name.
>>>> I have seen no evidence of this.
>>> For evidence, take a look at the "Products" section of the Postgres
>>> Weekly News.
>> I just read through all products sections in the PostgreSQL weekly news
>> from 07-22-07 to 09-30-07.
>
> Nice job of careful cherry-picking, but I'm not buying it.

It is your news David, written in black and white. Feel free to review
them yourself and post a counter. I would be interested in anything I
missed.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Cheers,
> D

- --

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHBo+zATb/zqfZUUQRAt9yAKCKMJGWII3WkFzhBINqRsRs0jrnkgCfc8dE
POi/0pATD1IhTYVFdqlCbdo=
=xL1Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----