On Thursday 30 August 2007 15:21, Ron Mayer wrote:
> I just asked a few people unfamiliar with the project
> how they'd expect "PostgreSQL" would be pronounced,
> and all agreed that they'd expect "Postgre Sickle".
>
I'd question your audience. Anyone familiar with SQL would not come to that
conclusion. I know of know one who refers to ms product as "sickle server".
(Well, no one who hasn't had to DBA it for a few months)
> I'd be interested to see others perform such a poll
> with people in their workplaces/homes/wherever and
> see what results they get.
>
Here's the results of people familiar with the community.
http://www.postgresql.org/community/survey.33
>
> I think the very worst part about the current situation
> is that there's a community of pronunciation/spelling-police
> who feel a need to "correct" anyone who says or spells
> the obvious implied short form of "postgre". Regardless
> of whether the Postgres or PostgreSQL wins the debate, I
> suspect that as long as PostgreSQL's are around Postgre
> will be around as well.
>
Agreed. So let's start calling out the people who are anal about it.
> To avoid having having most new user's introduction's
> to the project (including CEOs, etc) being the "you're
> pronouncing it wrong" rant, would it make sense to
> formally announce that "postgre" is officially
> acceptable even though no one likes how it sounds?
> (It's not like anyone likes how "QL" sounds either.)
>
It's worth noting that even postgre produces different announciations itself.
> This requires zero changes in our usage/logos/etc
> and has no work besides one sentence in the FAQ - but
> will probably cut down on the bad-first-impressions
> that the pronunciation-police inflict on new users.
>
Officially you pronounce it "postgres-q-l" but many people refer to it as
postgres or postgre. We recommend you call it "Postgres".
?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
