Thread: Re: The name of the game
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I heard people making this same mistake in presentations at this > past weekend's Postgres Anniversary Conference :-( Arguably, > the 1996 decision to call it PostgreSQL instead of reverting to > plain Postgres was the single worst mistake this project ever made. > It seems far too late to change now, though. Not at all. For a start, the project can make it clear that "Postgres" is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "PostgreSQL", and switch from encouraging Postgres instead of PostgreSQL, while keeping the ugly one around as a perpetual synonym. The fact that it is still causing problems ten years later indicates that this is not a problem that is going away easily. Practically everyone already calls it Postgres anyway, even among those of us who can pronounce it correctly. :) Why not bite the bullet at the ten-year mark and change to the correct name? Otherwise, Tom may post an email in 2016 about how the 1996 decision was still the single worst mistake the project has ever made in the last 20 years... - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com End Point Corporation PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607130200 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFEtecHvJuQZxSWSsgRAqLPAKC3JrDFG5hikZg12QCuRdMnuxQChACg1AOT HDqgKNa5GA0gPo45YUBtlcg= =x7DT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Not at all. For a start, the project can make it clear that "Postgres" > is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "PostgreSQL", and switch > from encouraging Postgres instead of PostgreSQL, while keeping the > ugly one around as a perpetual synonym. The fact that it is still > causing problems ten years later indicates that this is not a problem > that is going away easily. Practically everyone already calls it > Postgres anyway, even among those of us who can pronounce it > correctly. :) Why not bite the bullet at the ten-year mark and change > to the correct name? Otherwise, Tom may post an email in 2016 about > how the 1996 decision was still the single worst mistake the project > has ever made in the last 20 years... Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems with PostgreSQL: Cons for PostgreSQL: (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point) 1. Long domain name 2. PostgreSQL, Inc. and the perception that "they" are postgresql (although that is very minute these days.) I do still run into it. 3. Difficult to say 4. PostgreSQL.Org is registered to Hub not the development group 5. Changing the name will likely alienate a long time member and co0-founder Pros for PostgreSQL: 1. The press knows us as that 2. Everyone complains about the name, but everyone knows it 3. It has been that way for 10 years 4. Everyone calls it postgres anyway, so who cares? Problems with Postgres: 1. Postgresintl.com (Dave Cramer) 2. Postgresinc.com (CMD) 3. PervasivePostgres.com (Pervasive) Pros for Postgres: 1. Short domain name 2. Goes back to our roots (kind of) 3. Easier to say 4. Domain name is registered to the development group Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > - -- > Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com > End Point Corporation > PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200607130200 > http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iD8DBQFEtecHvJuQZxSWSsgRAqLPAKC3JrDFG5hikZg12QCuRdMnuxQChACg1AOT > HDqgKNa5GA0gPo45YUBtlcg= > =x7DT > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
> with PostgreSQL:
>
> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
>
> 1. Long domain name
It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
> 2. PostgreSQL, Inc. and the perception that "they" are postgresql
> (although that is very minute these days.) I do still run into it.
> 3. Difficult to say
> 4. PostgreSQL.Org is registered to Hub not the development group
> 5. Changing the name will likely alienate a long time member and
> co0-founder
>
> Pros for PostgreSQL:
>
> 1. The press knows us as that
> 2. Everyone complains about the name, but everyone knows it
> 3. It has been that way for 10 years
> 4. Everyone calls it postgres anyway, so who cares?
There are a lot of items like graphics/documentation/code that we have aquired
over the years that all refer to PostgreSQL. These would all need to be
modified.
>
> Problems with Postgres:
>
> 1. Postgresintl.com (Dave Cramer)
> 2. Postgresinc.com (CMD)
> 3. PervasivePostgres.com (Pervasive)
>
There would be added confusion, as many software packages would now have to
say "works with postgres and postgresql"
> Pros for Postgres:
>
> 1. Short domain name
2 fewer charactors? again... not valid.
> 2. Goes back to our roots (kind of)
> 3. Easier to say
> 4. Domain name is registered to the development group
>
Not exactly. The .org domain is registered, but .net and maybe .us or .info
are registered to complete 3rd parties, who aiui are not exactly willing to
transfer those domain names to the project.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
>> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
>> with PostgreSQL:
>>
>> Cons for PostgreSQL:
>> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
>>
>> 1. Long domain name
>
> It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view.
Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit?
ME: WWW.postgresql.org
Customer: What?
Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
Customer: Why the ql?
And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being
longer is relevant.
>> 2. PostgreSQL, Inc. and the perception that "they" are postgresql
>> (although that is very minute these days.) I do still run into it.
>> 3. Difficult to say
>> 4. PostgreSQL.Org is registered to Hub not the development group
>> 5. Changing the name will likely alienate a long time member and
>> co0-founder
>>
>> Pros for PostgreSQL:
>>
>> 1. The press knows us as that
>> 2. Everyone complains about the name, but everyone knows it
>> 3. It has been that way for 10 years
>> 4. Everyone calls it postgres anyway, so who cares?
>
> There are a lot of items like graphics/documentation/code that we have aquired
> over the years that all refer to PostgreSQL. These would all need to be
> modified.
Very good point!
>
>> Problems with Postgres:
>>
>> 1. Postgresintl.com (Dave Cramer)
>> 2. Postgresinc.com (CMD)
>> 3. PervasivePostgres.com (Pervasive)
>>
>
> There would be added confusion, as many software packages would now have to
> say "works with postgres and postgresql"
Yep.
>
>> Pros for Postgres:
>>
>> 1. Short domain name
>
> 2 fewer charactors? again... not valid.
I don't agree but that's ok :)
>
>> 2. Goes back to our roots (kind of)
>> 3. Easier to say
>> 4. Domain name is registered to the development group
>>
>
> Not exactly. The .org domain is registered, but .net and maybe .us or .info
> are registered to complete 3rd parties, who aiui are not exactly willing to
> transfer those domain names to the project.
Well frankly, for .us and info who the heck cares. I have yet to go to a
website (except for slony.info) that is a .info by choice.
.Us? Again so what.
.Net - well it does point www.postgresql.org, so he may not be
completely unwilling.
FYI postgresql.xxx suffers from similar problems with .info and .us
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
> >> Cons for PostgreSQL: > >> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point) > >> > >> 1. Long domain name > > > > It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring > > Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view. > > Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit? > ME: WWW.postgresql.org > Customer: What? > Me: www.postgres --- ql.org > Customer: Why the ql? > > And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is > spelled is difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus > the domain name being longer is relevant. I don't see the relevance of the domainname at all. I type in "postgres.org" and it redirects to "postgresql.org". If the names were reversed, I would assume "postgresql.org" would be redirecting to "postgres.org". (Same could - and should - of course go for .anything, assuming we have access to the domain) So tell your customer whatever seems easiest (yes, that's most likely postgres - that would be even easier than pgsql.org, if we had it, since it's easily pronouncable) and let's have a computer deal with sorting that part out. //Magnus
>
> So tell your customer whatever seems easiest (yes, that's most likely
> postgres - that would be even easier than pgsql.org, if we had it, since
> it's easily pronouncable) and let's have a computer deal with sorting
> that part out.
Great then I get to explain why postgres is postgresql but not pgsql...
Meh :).
I get your point. My point is that it does matter from a normal user
point of view.
Is it a huge deal? Of course not, but it is also not a red-herring.
There is a cost associated.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> //Magnus
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:22, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing
> >> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems
> >> with PostgreSQL:
> >>
> >> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> >> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point)
> >>
> >> 1. Long domain name
> >
> > It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring
>
> Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view.
>
> Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit?
> ME: WWW.postgresql.org
> Customer: What?
> Me: www.postgres --- ql.org
> Customer: Why the ql?
>
> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being
> longer is relevant.
>
let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-)
the length of the world <> the difficulty in pronouncing the word. You've
listed it being difficult to say in #3 (and you'll note I didn't argue with
you), so I don't see that as valid justification for #1.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
>>
>> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is
>> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being
>> longer is relevant.
>>
>
> let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-)
Are you making my argument to switch to postgresinc.com for me?
Believe me, our name causing an undue amount of grief for us as well :).
Guess how many times I get to say:
My email address is jd@commandprompt.com, you know like a command prompt
on your computer?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
>> So tell your customer whatever seems easiest (yes, that's most likely
>> postgres - that would be even easier than pgsql.org, if we had it, since
>> it's easily pronouncable) and let's have a computer deal with sorting
>> that part out.
>
> Great then I get to explain why postgres is postgresql but not pgsql...
I somewhat favor the approach of indicating that it's a "silent Q" :-).
<http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/TheBookshopSketch>
...
C: I wonder if you might have a copy of "Rarnaby Budge"?
P: No, as I say, we're right out of Edmund Wells!
C: No, not Edmund Wells - Charles Dikkens.
P: (pause - eagerly) Charles Dickens??
C: Yes.
P: (excitedly) You mean "Barnaby Rudge"!
C: No, "Rarnaby Budge" by Charles Dikkens. That's Dikkens with two Ks, the
well-known Dutch author.
P: (slight pause) No, well we don't have "Rarnaby Budge" by Charles Dikkens
with two Ks, the well-known Dutch author, and perhaps to save time I
should add that we don't have "Karnaby Fudge" by Darles Chickens, or
"Farmer of Sludge" by Marles Pickens, or even "Stickwick Stapers" by Farles
Wickens with four M's and a silent Q!!!!! Why don't you try W. H. Smith's?
C: Ah did, They sent me here.
P: DID they.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sgml.html
--Despite Pending :Alarm--
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> FYI postgresql.xxx suffers from similar problems with .info and .us
Well, postgresql.xxx suffers from the problem that ICANN turned down
the application for that TLD...
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx>
:-)
--
output = reverse("gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/
Rules of the Evil Overlord #137. "Before spending available funds on
giant gargoyles, gothic arches, or other cosmetically intimidating
pieces of architecture, I will see if there are any valid military
expenditures that could use the extra budget."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
On Thursday 13. July 2006 21:38, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled >>> is difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name >>> being longer is relevant. >> >> let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? >> :-) > >Are you making my argument to switch to postgresinc.com for me? > >Believe me, our name causing an undue amount of grief for us as well > :). Guess how many times I get to say: > >My email address is jd@commandprompt.com, you know like a command > prompt on your computer? Windows user: "What's a command prompt?" -- Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009 http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE
Robert Treat wrote: > On Thursday 13 July 2006 14:22, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Robert Treat wrote: >>> It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring >> >> Me: www.postgres --- ql.org >> Customer: Why the ql? > > let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-) Nice example. One distinction is that they don't spell CommandPrompt CommAndProMPT If they did, and then got into arguments with customers who (not unreasonably) call their company "Come and Pro MPT" it'd probably hurt their organization. So long the spelling is PostgreSQL and the pronunciation is anything other than "Postgre something" confusion will result. If the spelling were changed to PostgresQL people will say "postgres q l". If the spelling were changed to PosTgresQL we'd have flamewars about "P.O.S. Tigress" being a common pronunciation. I still think moving to Postgres would be the best for everyone; but if people like the QL, how about changing the capitalization to suggest the desired pronunciation or changing the pronunciation what the current spelling suggests. Note that FORTRAN successfully switched to Fortran in '90; so there's precedent for that working.
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: >> On Thursday 13 July 2006 12:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Well there are a lot of reasons back and forth. The only thing changing >>> the name to postgres does is simplify the name. Here are the problems >>> with PostgreSQL: >>> >>> Cons for PostgreSQL: >>> (Yes I am aware of the Trademark, but it is invalid at this point) >>> >>> 1. Long domain name >> >> It is only 2 more letters... this is a red herring > > Oh.. very valid from a communication point of view. > > Customer (on phone): What what site should I visit? > ME: WWW.postgresql.org > Customer: What? > Me: www.postgres --- ql.org > Customer: Why the ql? > > And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is > difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being longer > is relevant. Just as an aside ... http://www.postgres.org will work, and gets them to the proper site too ... where we've been able to, we've made sure that both could be used ... ---- 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
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> So tell your customer whatever seems easiest (yes, that's most likely >> postgres - that would be even easier than pgsql.org, if we had it, since >> it's easily pronouncable) and let's have a computer deal with sorting >> that part out. > > Great then I get to explain why postgres is postgresql but not pgsql... Sorry, I don't own pgsql.org, else I'd point it to postgresql.org :( Some gy in KZ(?) owns it ... ---- 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
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> >>> And yes this does happen. The name by nature of how it is spelled is >>> difficult to say without confusing someone. Thus the domain name being >>> longer is relevant. >>> >> >> let's see... c-o-m-m-a-n-d-p-r-o-m-p-t... thats what... 13 letters? :-) > > Are you making my argument to switch to postgresinc.com for me? > > Believe me, our name causing an undue amount of grief for us as well :). > Guess how many times I get to say: > > My email address is jd@commandprompt.com, you know like a command prompt on > your computer? I think your domainname is cool myself ... *shrug* How much more "computerese" can you get? :) ---- 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
> > >> Cons for PostgreSQL: A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-)
Richard Broersma Jr wrote: > > > >> Cons for PostgreSQL: > > A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-) I was actually thinking Postgres-QL. -- Bruce Momjian bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> I was actually thinking Postgres-QL. How about Postgrezzque'el ? -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: > How about Postgrezzque'el ? Gesundheit!
>> I was actually thinking Postgres-QL. > > How about Postgrezzque'el ? We gotta be cooler, more hip hop: Postshizzle
On 7/13/06, Richard Broersma Jr <rabroersma@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> Cons for PostgreSQL:
> A quick fix could be PostgresQL :-)
Or even better: PostgresSQL. People would not be tempted to eat
"s" in postgres, and we'd retaing the SQL part. ;)
Cons: one more letter, oh and domain is registered too...
Regards,
Dawid
On Jul 17, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >>> I was actually thinking Postgres-QL. >> How about Postgrezzque'el ? > > We gotta be cooler, more hip hop: > > Postshizzle That almost made the disaster that has become my trip back to Austin from OSCon worthwhile. :) -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461