I really struggle with the idea that changing the brand name mandates the
programmers/core team to propagate the brand name back into the PostgreSQL
source code or package structure.
I would be interested in hearing why someone might think that?
Regards,
Liam
_____________________________________________
Liam O'Duibhir - Programme Manager - Open Source Software
Fujitsu Australia Software Technology
14 Rodborough Road, Frenchs Forest NSW 2086
Tel: (61-2) 9452 9068 Fax: (61-2) 9975 3779
Mob: 0423 025 852 Email: LiamOD@fast.fujitsu.com.au
postgresql.fastware.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-
> owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:00 AM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: PostgreSQL advocacy
> Subject: Re: [CORE] Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
> PostgreSQL)
>
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Of course, that's 70% of -advocacy, which by nature is going to be the
> >> subset of the community most interested in this change and least
> >> interested in the ensuing costs.
>
> > It seems there were a significant number of people with swag who will
> > pay the cost somehow.
>
> That's adopting exactly the view I thought it was, that only directly
> marketing-related costs matter. Again, this seems to be considering
> only advocacy-related concerns.
>
> I'll confine my reply to one point: do you have any idea what will
> happen if I try to change the default PGDATA location on Red Hat
> from /var/lib/pgsql to something else?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
