Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I think we are getting a little silly here. If the preferred project name is
> > changed, nothing will _have_ to get thrown out, changed, etc. PostgreSQL can
> > remain an acceptable synonym from here until the end of time. There will
> > be little to no confusion - a simple FAQ item should cover it:
> >
> > Q: Why do some places use "Postgres" and some use "PostgreSQL"?
>
> Greg, with respect. This is bogus.
>
> 1. Nobody reads FAQs except the people who wrote it
> 2. In marketing, a name is extremely important.
>
> PostgreSQL does not equal Postgres
>
> All of those materials will need to be reprinted, remanufactured, and
> redesigned. Otherwise we look like a bunch of hacks, and not in the good
> way.
>
> We will also spend many hours declaring to people:
>
> 1. Why we changed
> 2. Did we think it was a good change
> 3. Re-educating press
> 4. Constantly fixing our own mistakes for the people that have been
> doing this for a decade.
Again, long term vs. short term. If we don't change it we will be having
awkward pronunciations forever, and taking the marketing hit for that
forever. There is going to be short term pain, but long term gain.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
