Re: Dropping postgres as a whole. - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.
Date
Msg-id 46FBF174.7060400@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.  ("Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-advocacy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Why don't we just stop this whole PostgreSQL->Postgres->Postgre junk and
>> just say, PostgreSQL, also referred to as PG.
>
> To you, it doesn't matter anyway.  You're consistently saying you're
> fine with the, "also referred to as Postgres", just that you don't
> want to change it officially.  Still, you're saying, "also referred to
> as PG" which means you still have no intent to officially do anything.
>
> Seems to me like you're trying to get everyone to forget the actual
> official name change topic and back onto the Postgres, PG, <insert
> your own favorite name here> discussion.

I am simply offering an alternative idea that may actually have some
merit and has shown to have at least some by the posts of one core
member and the leader of the PDXPUG.

I would also note that the "current" topic is not about changing
official name. The current topic, is about if we should intersperse
PostgreSQL and Postgres into the documentation.

>
>> Heck, I know plenty of people that just say PG, or PGSQL, myself included.
>
> So do I, but not in conversation; it just sounds lame.  I can't think
> of one sentence that sounds good with PG in place of Postgres.

I don't know that I agree. I could see, "Yeah I use pgsql, as a little
cumbersome, but Pg is short, simple and sweet".

> Frankly, I think PostgreSQL is better than "PG" in spoken
> conversation.

Of course it is. That is why the name should never officially change.

>
> Examples (which sounds better from a marketing perspective?  PG is a
> geek acronym that ain't gonna fly in helping Postgres advocacy):
>
> After seeing what PG is capable of, our company decided to adopt it.
> After seeing what Postgres is capable of, our company decided to adopt it.
> After seeing what PostgreSQL is capable of, our company decided to adopt it.

+1 on the third one.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG+/F0ATb/zqfZUUQRAj5gAJ0U0HWVSUGgRtILPCud0bilRoJ18ACeJDdB
DidV1/yrRgn+mdbYaEN2s3o=
=obhX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.
Next
From: Selena Deckelmann
Date:
Subject: Re: Dropping postgres as a whole.