Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
> we have:
>
> 1) No change
> 2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
> 3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
> 4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
> 5) Change the name to "Postgres"
>
> I think we have already done #2 in FAQ item #1, so one approach would be
> to choose #3 and see how we like it.
I wouldn't say we've done #2.
A variation of #2 would be to emphasize it much *much* *MUCH* more.
Just as IBM uses the term "IBM" much more than the cumbersome
"International Business Machines Corporation" - the project could
move to using "Postgres" almost everywhere -- Home Page,
Documentation, Press Releases, Logos, etc. The move could
be gradual, as I expect IBM's was.
The cumbersome long form could still exist; but would be only
used about as much as IBM uses their cumbersome long-form.
