Hi,
Robert Treat wrote:
> Unfortunatly I took a fair amount of sales and marketing classes in college,
Why should that be unfortunate? :-) Anyway...
> so I guess I have to chime in here. The argument against it is weakening the
> brand, and adding confusion to the market place. . We already suffer from
> this now, and promoting two names only makes this worse.
We *still* suffer from this, despite having promoted PostgreSQL for long
enough. From that very same marketing perspective, I'd say it's about
time to clarify and shorten the name, so as to strengthen the brand.
> Honestly I can't believe that people would think the solution to having a poor
> project name is to have two project names.
We already *have* at least two (PostgreSQL and Postgres) commonly used
names. Let's get rid of one of them!
> Especially when the two project
> names really means we continue on with four project names, as people continue
> to use postgres-sequal and postgre.
..which isn't any worse than now.
> Furthermore, it is obvious that an FAQ
> entry cannot solve this problem, if it could, we wouldn't have the problem to
> begin with, since the "how to pronounce" question has been there for years,
> along with an MP3 example.
The FAQ change isn't meant as a final solution, but it's a first step
towards "Postgres".
IMO a slow migration away from PostgreSQL is the only option, as this is
an open source project, not a centralized, well managed company.
Regards
Markus
