Scott Lamb wrote:
> I'm grateful to RedHat for the time they've put into PostgreSQL, and
> they can call it whatever they damn well please.
I agree that they can, and it is their decision.
But by doing so their efforts at promoting their database do nothing
to help spread the adoption of PostgreSQL. That is, they do nothing
to improve the mindshare of PostgreSQL. In fact, their efforts
*hinder* PostgreSQL's mindshare.
The probability that something will be chosen for new projects is
almost directly related to that something's popularity, so by
marketing PostgreSQL under a different name RedHat is making it more
difficult for PostgreSQL to gain popularity: they're essentially
causing PostgreSQL to compete against itself for customers.
It would be exactly like RedHat naming their distribution "RedHat OS"
instead of "Redhat Linux". Many people who purchased "RedHat OS"
would have no idea that it's Linux under the hood, and as a result
they would not be able to recommend Linux as a solution to others even
if they were ecstatic about "RedHat OS" -- because they wouldn't know
that "RedHat OS" *is* Linux.
I would be much happier if they called RHDB something like "RedHat
PostgreSQL Server", just like they call their distribution "RedHat
Linux".
--
Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
