On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> PostgreSQL (aka PgSQL aka Postgres aka Pg) ... ppl use all the various
> forms ...
Having to say that is a very, very good reason to just change the name
back to "postgres" *everywhere*, and stick with that.
> Note that the lists themselves act as their own marketing ...
> pgsql-*@postgresql.org ... and all the search engines have
> postgresql.org in them....
Is there a difficulty in using postgres.org instead?
> , and, I'm sorry, but someones lame argument about 'whether to search
> for postgres or postgresql' ... like, come on ... if you have any
> doubt, just search for postgres, it *is* a sub-string of the formal
> name
I did search. A search for "postgres" turns up only one quarter of the
hits, does not turn up the advertisement for postgresql documentation,
and the second link is to a page called "University POSTGRES 4.2".
The advertisement thing worries me particularly; it means that
advertisers have to advertise on more keywords in order to achieve
reasonable coverage.
Now, having done a web search on "pgsql", I can now see your difficulty
with the name change; you are the president of a company called
"PostgreSQL Inc." Why didn't you just say this from the beginnning?
Nobody here is trying to make life difficult for those promoting
postgres, and if you really are marketing the "PostgreSQL" name hard,
maybe we shouldn't change it. But I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of
that marketing, unfortunately (or perhaps I would have heard of your
company before this).
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
