On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
> with PostgreSQL:
>
> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
>
> 1. Long domain name
It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
> 2. PostgreSQL, Inc. and the perception that "they" are postgresql
> (although that is very minute these days.) I do still run into it.
> 3. Difficult to say
> 4. PostgreSQL.Org is registered to Hub not the development group
> 5. Changing the name will likely alienate a long time member and
> co0-founder
>
> Pros for PostgreSQL:
>
> 1. The press knows us as that
> 2. Everyone complains about the name, but everyone knows it
> 3. It has been that way for 10 years
> 4. Everyone calls it postgres anyway, so who cares?
There are a lot of items like graphics/documentation/code that we have aquired
over the years that all refer to PostgreSQL. These would all need to be
modified.
>
> Problems with Postgres:
>
> 1. Postgresintl.com (Dave Cramer)
> 2. Postgresinc.com (CMD)
> 3. PervasivePostgres.com (Pervasive)
>
There would be added confusion, as many software packages would now have to
say "works with postgres and postgresql"
> Pros for Postgres:
>
> 1. Short domain name
2 fewer charactors? again... not valid.
> 2. Goes back to our roots (kind of)
> 3. Easier to say
> 4. Domain name is registered to the development group
>
Not exactly. The .org domain is registered, but .net and maybe .us or .info
are registered to complete 3rd parties, who aiui are not exactly willing to
transfer those domain names to the project.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
