I hate to play devil's advocate, but isn't the reason it is called
PostgreSQL now due to marketing? As I understand it, the name PostgreSQL
came about because the development team wanted to convey the fact that
Postgres95 was now an SQL based DBMS. From a technical standpoint
there's no reason it couldn't be called Postgres2002 or some such
nonsense, but it might be more cryptic as to what purpose it serves.
That's marketing, pure and simple.
Robert Treat
On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 13:09, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > I totally agree. The name has proven to be hard to pronounce, and that
> > is bad for marketing, period. Is marketing important enough to change
> > the name? That is the question.
>
> No, period.
>
> For starters, ppl are confusing 'word of mouth' with marketing, which they
> aren't the same ...
>
> Marketing *is* the 8 or so books on the shelves and at Amazon for
> PostgreSQL, and the ones to follow ...
>
> Marketing is the thousands of t-shirts and mugs and CDs that have gone out
> over the past 4+ years ...
>
> Marketing is the countless articles/reviews that ppl have written that
> talk about PostgreSQL ...
>
> Marketing is the awards we have won over the years ...
>
> Marketing is proliferation of the newsgroups over the 'Net over the past
> 4+ years ...
>
> Marketing is the countless companies out there that offer PostgreSQL
> services, support *and* training ...
>
> If ppl want to be lazy and call it Postgres, so be it ... as I mentioned
> before, its like calling Samantha, Sam ... but the formal name itself is,
> and will remain, PostgreSQL ... its what *alot* of us have been marketing
> for years now, period.
>
