-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- --On Monday, September 17, 2007 22:26:28 -0500 Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
wrote:
> To further clarify, IIRC the complaint was based on the expense of reworking
> all their swag. Hopefully a gradual transition removes that objection.
Y"IIRC" it wrong ... in Japan, according to Tatsuo Ishii's post (I just re-read
it), he points to the fact that Postgres *isn't* a recognized product,
PostgreSQL is, as that is what they have been promoting since '96 ... my read
is that they haven't really allowed stuff like Pg or Postgres become 'common
place' similar to the English community, but he can comment to that if he so
chooses ...
Again, as I'm interpreting what he said (which, in fact, I find to be quite
clear), it is like JoshB has already pointed out ... it would cost them alot to
push the name Postgres as being the same product as PostgreSQL ... and not just
as concerns 'swag', but as concerns 'brand recognition' ...
- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy@hub.org MSN . scrappy@hub.org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFG70tr4QvfyHIvDvMRAkqFAKCoqg4Utkz5fRxY+Cq+/5zSr9yelwCg5JYK
lp38UAgTsQcLWLrVeIeQB0A=
=IfmA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
