On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:22, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > 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
>
> Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view.
>
> Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit?
> ME: WWW.postgresql.org
> Customer: What?
> Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
> Customer: Why the ql?
>
> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being
> longer is relevant.
>
let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-)
the length of the world <> the difficulty in pronouncing the word. You've
listed it being difficult to say in #3 (and you'll note I didn't argue with
you), so I don't see that as valid justification for #1.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
