"Chris Travers" <chris@metatrontech.com> writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> Unfortunatly I took a fair amount of sales and marketing classes in college,
>> 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.
>
> The only major problem I see with this argument is that the RDBMS is called any
> of: PostgreSQL, Postgres, Pg, etc. Postgres is arguably *already* a stronger
> trademark of this project than is PostgreSQL because most people who are lazy
> type "PostgreSQL" as 'Pg' and pronounce it "Postgres."
>
> I guess my concern is that we already have this problem.
Wait, what problem?
> If we want to be consistent, we need to name things more consistently.
That's just a truism, do we care about being consistent though?
> It would be better to have *one* trademark would clearly be better.
Better how?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
