2010/1/26 Joshua D. Drake
<jd@commandprompt.com>
> Well, I think it's kind of sticking our heads in the ground to just say
> "it's too late!" That argument has ben raised before, and the only thing
> people agree upon is that it will be harder the longer we wait.
>
> Here's an idea: if I go a month without seeing "Postgre" or "PostgresSQL",
> or having someone ask me how to pronounce it, I'll stop asking people
> to make the change. :)
>
Or, you could accept it isn't going to happen. Core has already made the
announcement that it isn't going to happen. The reality is there is a
huge community that is perfectly happy with our geeky name. There is
nothing stopping you or anyone else from using the term Postgres.
EDB has already rebranded all their products to use it and it has
affected our ability to continue as a thriving project.
If you want to use the term postgres, do so. I use them interchangeably.
And to be frank... PostgreSQL is a killer name. Why? Because it is an
instant conversation starter... I can't count how many times I have had
a conversation with someone, told them what I do and then have to
explain what it is just because the name is difficult to pronounce.
In short, the "problems" we have with the name are semantic. When used
strategically it rocks.
Joshua D. Drake
Plus it has "SQL" in the name, to counter MySQL, Microsoft SQL Server, SQLite. When someone sees the name Firebird, they might think of a cross between Firefox and Thunderbird (and Firefox was originally called Firebird), or the name of an old games company. FileMaker... wtf? Ingres... wtf2? Informix Dynamic Server... what's that supposed to be then?
The current name tells you what sort of software it is. Postgres on its own tells you nothing, and I don't think the "brand" is strong enough to stand by that name. It doesn't sound like a competitor to any other SQL database otherwise, and I see more cons than pros accompanying a name change.
Thom
