On Tuesday 26 January 2010 11:04:32 am Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > > Nice attempt at a compromise.
> >
> > Thanks! :)
> >
> > > However, it ignores several points around a name change:
> > >
> > > (1) JPUG, our single largest user community representing at least 25%
> > > of PostgreSQL users worldwide, opposes a name change.
> >
> > This is not exactly true. Please see the archives. There's also no reason
> > they can't use "PostgreSQL" as long as they like, and change when/if they
> > are ready. Just like some people, groups, and companies use "Postgres"
> > now.
> >
> > > (2) "Postgres" is really not that much better of a name. WTF does it
> > > mean? If we're renaming, how about "AdvancedDB"? "AllYouEverNeedDB"?
> > > Or "EnterpriseDB"? Oh, wait. ;-)
> >
> > It doesn't have to "mean" anything. The problem is that PostgreSQL is an
> > ugly, geeky, unpronounceable, untranslatable mess. It's actually to our
> > advantage to not have it mean anything. Google "firebird" for Exhibit A.
> > (Oh and Googling "postgres" vs "postgresql" is meaningless - both have
> > postgresql.org as the top hit, so Google already handles the alias)
>
> What would be interesting would be to name part of the project
> 'Postgres'. Right now the database superuser is 'postgres', and no one
> seems to be confused by that. I think we have enough people who like
> both names that we should be able to come up with a compromise that
> everyone likes. I am not sure what parts of the project we could name
> "Postgres" instead of "PostgreSQL".
The more I thought about this, the more I realized it was a good idea, but
backwards. There is an community of software growing up around the database,
Slony, Bucardo, PostGIS, etc. It would make sense to differentiate the
community from the database itself. Have the community as Postgres and the
database as PostgreSQL.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@gmail.com
