On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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 ...
>
> So you think, even marketing-wise that PostgreSQL is better. At a
> minimum, we should add "also called 'postgres'" to all our introductory
> documentation.
I do agree with this ... in fact, it shoudl go as far as saying something
like:
PostgreSQL (aka PgSQL aka Postgres aka Pg) ... ppl use all the various
forms ...
Note that the lists themselves act as their own marketing ...
pgsql-*@postgresql.org ... and all the search engines have postgresql.org
in them, and, I'm sorry, but someones lame argument about 'whether to
search for postgres or postgresql' ... like, come on ... if you have any
doubt, just search for postgres, it *is* a sub-string of the formal name
...
