Thread: Theme of this release: Performance?

All,

What should the "theme" of this release be?  Performance seems like the
obvious one, but rather predictable.  Is there any other tack we could take?

"Enterprise adoption" would be nice, but would count on getting an extensive
quote from a large company which planned on migrating to PostgreSQL based on
the 8.3 features.  I don't know of anyone offhand.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> What should the "theme" of this release be?  Performance seems like the
> obvious one, but rather predictable.  Is there any other tack we could take?

Scalability.

>
> "Enterprise adoption" would be nice, but would count on getting an extensive
> quote from a large company which planned on migrating to PostgreSQL based on
> the 8.3 features.  I don't know of anyone offhand.
>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzdMHATb/zqfZUUQRAlbEAJ91upXFGLaHFZxfY/4SJF7uiEs5bgCeOf0a
G9OyhbILeZM3ZqFylDmvYio=
=CBUN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Harald Armin Massa wrote:
> Josh,
>
> What should the "theme" of this release be?  Performance seems like the
>> obvious one, but rather predictable.  Is there any other tack we could
>> take?
>>
>> If the Visual C buildability does make it, I suggest we also stress that
> point. Whatever somebody thinks about windows, it is a very well known
> platform; and "compilability with a Microsoft Compiler" can give some good
> impressions with nontech management.

Hmmm we may be able to spin (did I actually write that) this...

I think that stating MSVC capability isn't worth much... but:

Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
native compilation.

Yes the Win32 twice is redundant but I can hear the roars now...

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Harald
>
>
>
>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzdxgATb/zqfZUUQRAvx8AJ93hQeJSHDhSDV+DCG2W6jC0Jp2LQCbB8CH
yXF1EoriLnrOYKHtJlxL/Qs=
=zIwK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Josh,

> Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
> native compilation.

Huh?  We did the 64 bit?

That's actually big news ...

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

On 8/23/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Harald Armin Massa wrote:
> > Josh,
> >
> > What should the "theme" of this release be?  Performance seems like the
> >> obvious one, but rather predictable.  Is there any other tack we could
> >> take?

Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?

- Another Josh

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh,
>
>> Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
>> native compilation.
>
> Huh?  We did the 64 bit?
>
> That's actually big news ...

We didn't. So we very much should not push that point ;-)

(BTW, what the heck is native 64bit win32? Is that what the rest of us
call win64? :-P)

//Magnus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Josh,
>>
>>> Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
>>> native compilation.
>> Huh?  We did the 64 bit?
>>
>> That's actually big news ...
>
> We didn't. So we very much should not push that point ;-)
>
> (BTW, what the heck is native 64bit win32? Is that what the rest of us
> call win64? :-P)

I make no apologies for not having an understanding of the terminology
Win64, as I don't run windows for anything except games. ;)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> //Magnus
>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzd4wATb/zqfZUUQRAo0cAJ4/Bo67rYf6t/ItXu4g4CmH0nhwUQCdGcSQ
JASrBiL0PJg5wAsMM/u3NlQ=
=cuIE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Josh,
>>
>>> Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
>>> native compilation.
>> Huh?  We did the 64 bit?
>>
>> That's actually big news ...
>
> We didn't. So we very much should not push that point ;-)

Oh, I thought we were 64bit safe on Win32 with the MSVC compiler. Sorry
for the noise.

Joshua D. Drake


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzd5SATb/zqfZUUQRAg1BAJ9c23+nLshw5oRqGnoUVMK6s0AijACdENTR
FK/rWGRF3yz5tTCtkj9nZEE=
=9RFC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Josh,

> Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?

No, it was "maturity".

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Josh,
>
>> Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?
>
> No, it was "maturity".

O.k. that's it. I am JD from now on, there are way too many Josh's
present anymore.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzeTnATb/zqfZUUQRAtRyAJ4ryGMGORKlQp8Vtxvp3OMSLQpEZACfU4sH
/+ojOb2o0rrK0yWtvZqdoPs=
=ua1g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Josh Berkus escribió:
> Josh,
>
> > Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?
>
> No, it was "maturity".

8.1 has
    The new release includes performance improvements and advanced SQL
    features which will support bigger data warehouses, higher-volume
    transaction processing, and more complex distributed enterprise
    software.

8.2 has
    This 14th public release adds features, maturity, and performance
    requested by business users, delivering manageability comparable to
    leading enterprise database systems.


So performance has always been part of the theme.  The question is _what else_
will be theme this release ...

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> What should the "theme" of this release be?  Performance seems like the
> obvious one, but rather predictable.  Is there any other tack we could take?

Scalability.

>
> "Enterprise adoption" would be nice, but would count on getting an extensive
> quote from a large company which planned on migrating to PostgreSQL based on
> the 8.3 features.  I don't know of anyone offhand.
>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
                        UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGzdMHATb/zqfZUUQRAlbEAJ91upXFGLaHFZxfY/4SJF7uiEs5bgCeOf0a
G9OyhbILeZM3ZqFylDmvYio=
=CBUN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

                http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Josh Berkus escribió:
>> Josh,
>>
>>> Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?
>> No, it was "maturity".
>
> 8.1 has
>     The new release includes performance improvements and advanced SQL
>     features which will support bigger data warehouses, higher-volume
>     transaction processing, and more complex distributed enterprise
>     software.
>
> 8.2 has
>     This 14th public release adds features, maturity, and performance
>     requested by business users, delivering manageability comparable to
>     leading enterprise database systems.
>
>
> So performance has always been part of the theme.  The question is _what else_
> will be theme this release ...

Well we have XML and TSearch2 as a new functional features.
We have HOT and plan invalidation as a new features for better 24/7
support (aside from performance).

Looking at [1] some of the items are too short and unknown for me to
make sense of what they imply. But so far I would say the postgresql
developers have improved the handling of (structured) clobs as well as
made postgresql more able to run 24/7 operations.

regards,
Lukas

[1] http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/8.3release

> ------- Original Message -------
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
> To: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
> Sent: 23/08/07, 20:21:54
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Theme of this release: Performance?
>
> Oh, I thought we were 64bit safe on Win32 with the MSVC compiler.

No, but we have a viable toolset to port it now.

/D

Le Thursday 23 August 2007 21:54:30 Alvaro Herrera, vous avez écrit :
> So performance has always been part of the theme.  The question is _what
> else_ will be theme this release ...

Some of the (main) patches included, from the dedicated wiki page[1], are:
  Tsearch2, big feature
  HOT, performances & scalability
  Async Commit, performance & scalability
  Sync Scan, performance & scalability
  Load distributed checkpoint, perfs & scalability
  Updatable Cursors, feature
  Circular buffer in tuplestore, perfs?
  scan resistant buffer cache, perfs & scalability
  varlena length, perfs & scalability
  Index Advisor, scalability

Sorry if some items are badly categorized, feel free to correct if it proves
useful for the topic. Same with missing important patches...

What I'd propose as the main theme is scalability and ongoing features
completion. PostgreSQL has less and less missing from the other big
commercial ones, and is more and more capable of serving big databases in
demanding environments. More capable than competition? certainly, try out by
yourself...

Ok, I'll let the people with some editing talent formulating this ;)

[1] http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Todo:PatchStatus

Hope this helps, Regards,
--
dim

jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> Harald Armin Massa wrote:
>> Josh,
>>
>> What should the "theme" of this release be?  Performance seems like the
>>> obvious one, but rather predictable.  Is there any other tack we could
>>> take?
>>>
>>> If the Visual C buildability does make it, I suggest we also stress that
>> point. Whatever somebody thinks about windows, it is a very well known
>> platform; and "compilability with a Microsoft Compiler" can give some good
>> impressions with nontech management.
>
> Hmmm we may be able to spin (did I actually write that) this...
>
> I think that stating MSVC capability isn't worth much... but:
>
> Greater Win32 scalability through native 64bit Win32 support and MSVC
> native compilation.
>
> Yes the Win32 twice is redundant but I can hear the roars now...

You need to have it added in twice in order to get up to the full 64
bits ;-).

[As the crowd roars, again...]
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxfinances.info")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/x.html
No lusers were harmed in  the creation of this  usenet article.  AND I
WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!
-- glmar0@twirl.mcc.ac.uk in alt.sysadmin.recovery

On Thursday 23 August 2007 15:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Josh Berkus escribió:
> > Josh,
> >
> > > Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?
> >
> > No, it was "maturity".
>
> 8.1 has
>     The new release includes performance improvements and advanced SQL
>     features which will support bigger data warehouses, higher-volume
>     transaction processing, and more complex distributed enterprise
>     software.
>
> 8.2 has
>     This 14th public release adds features, maturity, and performance
>     requested by business users, delivering manageability comparable to
>     leading enterprise database systems.
>
>
> So performance has always been part of the theme.  The question is _what
> else_ will be theme this release ...

"Enterprisyness"

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 07:45:21PM -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 23 August 2007 15:54, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Josh Berkus escribió:
> > > Josh,
> > >
> > > > Wasn't Performance the theme of the last release?
> > >
> > > No, it was "maturity".
> >
> > 8.1 has
> >     The new release includes performance improvements and advanced SQL
> >     features which will support bigger data warehouses, higher-volume
> >     transaction processing, and more complex distributed enterprise
> >     software.
> >
> > 8.2 has
> >     This 14th public release adds features, maturity, and performance
> >     requested by business users, delivering manageability comparable to
> >     leading enterprise database systems.
> >
> >
> > So performance has always been part of the theme.  The question is _what
> > else_ will be theme this release ...
>
> "Enterprisyness"

Sadly, PostgreSQL 8.3 will lack the required byzantine entangled
layers of Java, C#, SOAP and round-cornered AJAX goodness which are
this week's /sine qua non/ of Enterprisiness.

On the bright side, it's got useful new features and new hooks for
creating even more useful new features :)

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Le Thursday 23 August 2007 21:54:30 Alvaro Herrera, vous avez ?crit?:
> > So performance has always been part of the theme.  The question is _what
> > else_ will be theme this release ...
>
> Some of the (main) patches included, from the dedicated wiki page[1], are:
>   Tsearch2, big feature
>   HOT, performances & scalability
>   Async Commit, performance & scalability
>   Sync Scan, performance & scalability
>   Load distributed checkpoint, perfs & scalability
>   Updatable Cursors, feature
>   Circular buffer in tuplestore, perfs?
>   scan resistant buffer cache, perfs & scalability
>   varlena length, perfs & scalability
>   Index Advisor, scalability
>
> Sorry if some items are badly categorized, feel free to correct if it proves
> useful for the topic. Same with missing important patches...
>
> What I'd propose as the main theme is scalability and ongoing features
> completion. PostgreSQL has less and less missing from the other big
> commercial ones, and is more and more capable of serving big databases in
> demanding environments. More capable than competition? certainly, try out by
> yourself...

I would say users are getting PostgreSQL features expected in 2010
today.  As for terms: flexibility, adapability, autotuning, new
capabilities for new workloads.  "PostgreSQL just got smarter."

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:12:43AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> capabilities for new workloads.  "PostgreSQL just got smarter."

I like that slogan.  (Or would, if "PostgreSQL" wasn't so awkward to
say ;-)

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
        --Dennis Ritchie

Bruce,

> I would say users are getting PostgreSQL features expected in 2010
> today.  As for terms: flexibility, adapability, autotuning, new
> capabilities for new workloads.  "PostgreSQL just got smarter."

Can you link the actual features to those themes?  I'm not seeing some of
them ...

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > I would say users are getting PostgreSQL features expected in 2010
> > today. ?As for terms: flexibility, adapability, autotuning, new
> > capabilities for new workloads. ?"PostgreSQL just got smarter."
>
> Can you link the actual features to those themes?  I'm not seeing some of
> them ...

"link"?  I am thinking HOT and concurrent sequential scans and async
commit.  These were things I didn't think we would get so soon.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Friday 24 August 2007 09:59, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Bruce,
> >
> > > I would say users are getting PostgreSQL features expected in 2010
> > > today. ?As for terms: flexibility, adapability, autotuning, new
> > > capabilities for new workloads. ?"PostgreSQL just got smarter."
> >
> > Can you link the actual features to those themes?  I'm not seeing some of
> > them ...
>
> "link"?  I am thinking HOT and concurrent sequential scans and async
> commit.  These were things I didn't think we would get so soon.

What I mean is:

flexibility == feature?
adaptability == feature?
autotuning == feature?
new capabilities == XML, scaling, checkpoint, etc.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Josh Berkus wrote:
> On Friday 24 August 2007 09:59, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Josh Berkus wrote:
> > > Bruce,
> > >
> > > > I would say users are getting PostgreSQL features expected in 2010
> > > > today. ?As for terms: flexibility, adapability, autotuning, new
> > > > capabilities for new workloads. ?"PostgreSQL just got smarter."
> > >
> > > Can you link the actual features to those themes?  I'm not seeing some of
> > > them ...
> >
> > "link"?  I am thinking HOT and concurrent sequential scans and async
> > commit.  These were things I didn't think we would get so soon.
>
> What I mean is:
>
> flexibility == feature?
> adaptability == feature?
> autotuning == feature?
> new capabilities == XML, scaling, checkpoint, etc.

Ah, OK.

autotuning:  HOT (handles update cleanup automatically), concurrent seqscans
flexibility: async commit
adaptability: checkpoint smoothing

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 12:12:43AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> capabilities for new workloads.  "PostgreSQL just got smarter."
>
> I like that slogan.  (Or would, if "PostgreSQL" wasn't so awkward to
> say ;-)

+1.   Seeing how many people I run into talking about Postgre
and Post-Gresquel, if there's one advocacy feature I would
suggest for 8.4 it'd be that the project rename itself to Postgres.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Harald Armin Massa wrote:
>>
>> +1.   Seeing how many people I run into talking about Postgre
>> and Post-Gresquel, if there's one advocacy feature I would
>> suggest for 8.4 it'd be that the project rename itself to Postgres.
>>
>
> So the slogan for 8.4 could be: The most advanced open source database just
> got easier to pronounce: Postgres.
>
> +1
>

See the archives. It isn't happening.

Joshua D. Drake

- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG0UvMATb/zqfZUUQRAqEPAJ0f1rTS8o8kQftxorRO7xm4+m9d1gCfTgrz
SMqACiiRSWe3A4teDHyRPZM=
=pd10
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sun, 2007-26-08 at 02:45 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> See the archives. It isn't happening.

No -- it has been discussed in the past, and we haven't decided to do
it. That does not mean "it isn't happening".

-Neil

Folks,

My perspective on the naming question is that if we wanted to do it, we needed
to do it for 8.0 which was when PostgreSQL became much higher profile.  We
did seriously evaluate it at that time, but the amount of effort involved
would have held up the release and we decided not to.

It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
effort and hunting down references.  Also, we don't have nearly as good
control of the various postgres.* domains as we do of postgresql.*.
(notably, postgres.net belongs to some unknown individual who refuses to sell
it to me).

Overall, I'd say that the advantages of changing the name don't balance the
effort involved in doing so.  That's a very qualitative judgement though, and
if there was overwhelming support in the community, *including* several
volunteers to help do the work, I'd certainly re-consider my stance.

Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was bitching
about people mispronouncing "MySQL".  So don't assume that shortening our
name would necessarily help ...

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was
> bitching about people mispronouncing "MySQL".

Do they say "My"?

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

On 26 Aug 2007 at 21:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was
> > bitching about people mispronouncing "MySQL".
>
> Do they say "My"?

As opposed to...?

--
Dan Langille - http://www.langille.org/
Available for hire: http://www.freebsddiary.org/dan_langille.php

On 8/26/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was bitching
> about people mispronouncing "MySQL".  So don't assume that shortening our
> name would necessarily help ...

You talking about My-SEQUEL instead of the correct My-S-Q-L?

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor            | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

On Sunday 26. August 2007, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>On 8/26/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was
>> bitching about people mispronouncing "MySQL".  So don't assume that
>> shortening our name would necessarily help ...
>
>You talking about My-SEQUEL instead of the correct My-S-Q-L?

MyCycle, the database bicycle.
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009
http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE
My Jazz Jukebox: http://www.last.fm/user/leifbk/

peter_e@gmx.net (Peter Eisentraut) writes:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was
>> bitching about people mispronouncing "MySQL".
>
> Do they say "My"?

No, it's probably that they didn't say "Their SQL."  Only employees of
MySQL AB are allowed to call it "MySQL" ;-).
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'linuxdatabases.info';
http://cbbrowne.com/info/x.html
"KDE isn't a  window manager.  It *includes* one, but  kwm is only one
of  *many* components  of KDE.   And kwm  is an  *optional* component.
GNOME is the same, except that it doesn't include a wm..."
-- cbbrowne@hex.net

Folks,

My perspective on the naming question is that if we wanted to do it, we needed
to do it for 8.0 which was when PostgreSQL became much higher profile.  We
did seriously evaluate it at that time, but the amount of effort involved
would have held up the release and we decided not to.

It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
effort and hunting down references.  Also, we don't have nearly as good
control of the various postgres.* domains as we do of postgresql.*.
(notably, postgres.net belongs to some unknown individual who refuses to sell
it to me).

Overall, I'd say that the advantages of changing the name don't balance the
effort involved in doing so.  That's a very qualitative judgement though, and
if there was overwhelming support in the community, *including* several
volunteers to help do the work, I'd certainly re-consider my stance.

Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was bitching
about people mispronouncing "MySQL".  So don't assume that shortening our
name would necessarily help ...

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org

On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 01:22:02AM -0700, Ron Mayer wrote:
>
> +1.   Seeing how many people I run into talking about Postgre
> and Post-Gresquel, if there's one advocacy feature I would
> suggest for 8.4 it'd be that the project rename itself to Postgres.

Please, not that thread.  There was a _reason_ I put the smiley
there!  No naming discussion.  The ship has sailed, the horse has
left the barn, and Elvis has left the building.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Unfortunately reformatting the Internet is a little more painful
than reformatting your hard drive when it gets out of whack.
        --Scott Morris

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 01:22:02AM -0700, Ron Mayer wrote:
>> +1.   Seeing how many people I run into talking about Postgre
>> and Post-Gresquel, if there's one advocacy feature I would
>> suggest for 8.4 it'd be that the project rename itself to Postgres.
>
> Please, not that thread.  There was a _reason_ I put the smiley
> there!  No naming discussion.  The ship has sailed, the horse has
> left the barn, and Elvis has left the building.

And yes Jim Morrison is really dead.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> A
>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG0ugyATb/zqfZUUQRAkOgAJwP7hdhR1C4IOK0GFixkwuiWgw9TACgp9NB
Ea5GYVOX4hKuAk7/0EwT18Q=
=QItq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

All,

> It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
> effort and hunting down references.  Also, we don't have nearly as good
> control of the various postgres.* domains as we do of postgresql.*.  
> (notably, postgres.net belongs to some unknown individual who refuses to
> sell it to me).

Update on this; Aaron got in touch with me and I think we can work something
out *if* we decide to change the name.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

My 0.02 is it should be done at a major point release such as 9.0.
Perhaps with the emphasis on maturity and speed improvements, 8.3 can
be 9.  Refined name, a more mature product... Sounds like a good
marketing move to me.

Just musing,

Gavin

On 8/27/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> All,
>
> > It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
> > effort and hunting down references. Also, we don't have nearly as good
> > control of the various postgres.* domains as we do of postgresql.*.
> > (notably, postgres.net belongs to some unknown individual who refuses to
> > sell it to me).
>
> Update on this; Aaron got in touch with me and I think we can work something
> out *if* we decide to change the name.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL @ Sun
> San Francisco
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
>> It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
>> effort and hunting down references.  Also, we don't have nearly as good
>> control of the various postgres.* domains as we do of postgresql.*.
>> (notably, postgres.net belongs to some unknown individual who refuses to
>> sell it to me).
>
> Update on this; Aaron got in touch with me and I think we can work something
> out *if* we decide to change the name.

there is not only postgres.net but country level domains and stuff all
over the place ...

I don't think that name change is buying us anything except _TONS_ of
work for us and other projects (like distributions) and no real gain (I
for myself find neither postgresql nor postgres and more or less
difficult to spell). Imho that makes about as much sense as discussing
if we should use an african or an asian elephant as the logo because
someone finds the smaller/larger ears are nicer to look at ...


Stefan

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 08:49:54PM +0200, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> I don't think that name change is buying us anything except _TONS_ of
> work for us and other projects (like distributions) and no real gain

I agree.  I hereby flog myself for even having mentioned the topic as
a joke.  My apologies.  There are surely more useful ways to spend
contributors' work than in renaming the project.  (And if we're going
to open all that up, why not look at TiGres or EleGres or ReGres --
oops, maybe not that one -- or whatever?  NOTE to people interested
in exploring that rathole: this suggestion is here as a _reductio ad
absurdum_, not as an idea to be pursued.)

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
When my information changes, I alter my conclusions.  What do you do sir?
        --attr. John Maynard Keynes

2007-08-27_14:49:54-0400 Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>:

> I don't think that name change is buying us anything except _TONS_ of
> work...

Ditto that.  Keep PostgreSQL.

* It's google'able.  Think of all of the documentation out there which
  refers to PostgreSQL.  When people start searching for 'postgres'
  they'll get virtually nothing.

* Why 'Postgres'?  Any marketing effort this large should start from
  scratch, and consider all possibilities, not just default to something
  barely different for the sake of easing the terrible pronunciation
  challenge.

* Maybe some people don't like PostgreSQL, but why assume everyone likes
  'Postgres' better.  I don't.

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

On Monday 27 August 2007 15:36, Ron Peterson wrote:
> 2007-08-27_14:49:54-0400 Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>:
>
> * It's google'able.  Think of all of the documentation out there which
>   refers to PostgreSQL.  When people start searching for 'postgres'
>   they'll get virtually nothing.

FYI: I never google postgresql, always postgres

> * Why 'Postgres'?  Any marketing effort this large should start from
>   scratch, and consider all possibilities, not just default to something
>   barely different for the sake of easing the terrible pronunciation
>   challenge.

I've noticed that it's easier pronouncing 'Postgres' than 'PostgreSQL' in languages other than English (the SQL part
getslost in the translation). 

On 8/27/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> And yes Jim Morrison is really dead.

... or is he?

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor            | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

Robert Bernier wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2007 15:36, Ron Peterson wrote:

> > * Why 'Postgres'?  Any marketing effort this large should start from
> >   scratch, and consider all possibilities, not just default to something
> >   barely different for the sake of easing the terrible pronunciation
> >   challenge.
>
> I've noticed that it's easier pronouncing 'Postgres' than 'PostgreSQL'
> in languages other than English (the SQL part gets lost in the
> translation).

Most people are baffled with "postgresql" in spanish.  I've had myself
presented as "postgresol developer" before talks.  I usually say "our
official name is PostgreSQL but it can be abbreviated as Postgres" and
then consistently use just Postgres all the time.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

> Most people are baffled with "postgresql" in spanish.  I've had myself
> presented as "postgresol developer" before talks.  I usually say "our
> official name is PostgreSQL but it can be abbreviated as Postgres" and
> then consistently use just Postgres all the time.

My random 2 euro-cents: what if for 8.3 the PGDG declared Postgres to be
an _official_ abbreviation?

Bye,
Chris.

2007-08-27_15:46:43-0400 Robert Bernier <robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca>:
> On Monday 27 August 2007 15:36, Ron Peterson wrote:
> > 2007-08-27_14:49:54-0400 Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>:
> >
> > * It's google'able.  Think of all of the documentation out there which
> >   refers to PostgreSQL.  When people start searching for 'postgres'
> >   they'll get virtually nothing.
>
> FYI: I never google postgresql, always postgres

You are missing over 20 million results.

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

Stefan Kaltenbrunner a écrit :
> Josh Berkus wrote:
>> All,
>>
>>> It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
>>> effort and hunting down references.  Also, we don't have nearly as good
>>> control of the various postgres.* domains as we do of postgresql.*.
>>> (notably, postgres.net belongs to some unknown individual who refuses to
>>> sell it to me).
>> Update on this; Aaron got in touch with me and I think we can work something
>> out *if* we decide to change the name.
>
> there is not only postgres.net but country level domains and stuff all
> over the place ...
>
> I don't think that name change is buying us anything except _TONS_ of
> work for us and other projects (like distributions) and no real gain (I
> for myself find neither postgresql nor postgres and more or less
> difficult to spell). Imho that makes about as much sense as discussing
> if we should use an african or an asian elephant as the logo because
> someone finds the smaller/larger ears are nicer to look at ...
>

+1


--
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
     http://lfs.traduc.org/
     http://docs.postgresqlfr.org/ -->

On Monday 27 August 2007 16:28, Ron Peterson wrote:
> > FYI: I never google postgresql, always postgres
>
> You are missing over 20 million results.

Can't be that important, I always get what I'm after :-)


Robert

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


Apologies, Andrew, but I think this is a very important topic, and
one that should be addressed.

Josh Berkus wrote:
> My perspective on the naming question is that if we wanted to do it, we needed
> to do it for 8.0 which was when PostgreSQL became much higher profile.  We
> did seriously evaluate it at that time, but the amount of effort involved
> would have held up the release and we decided not to.

That's not my recollection. I recall battling to make 7.5 into 8.0, but there was
no real debate about a name change at that time. Since then, however, I've talked to
lots of people about changing the name and found no real objection, only
support, including from most of Core. Even Tom Lane admits it was a mistake:
http://tinyurl.com/2v4fdl

> It is still the case that changing the name would involve a lot of tedious
> effort and hunting down references.

Nobody says we have to go crazy and hunt down and change every single reference.
"Postgres" would simply be the preferred and official name, while "PostgreSQL"
would be the older, alternative spelling.

> Overall, I'd say that the advantages of changing the name don't balance the
> effort involved in doing so.  That's a very qualitative judgement though, and
> if there was overwhelming support in the community, *including* several
> volunteers to help do the work, I'd certainly re-consider my stance.

I think the support in the community is there, and I don't see what all the
effort involved is. We simply make it the official name, and migrate things
over as we can, and don't sweat the older stuff. Count me as one volunteer,
at any rate.

> Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was bitching
> about people mispronouncing "MySQL".  So don't assume that shortening our
> name would necessarily help ...

I'm pretty sure that "Postgres" would have little to none of the pronunciation
problems that PostgreSQL has. Also, MySQL is a compound, while PostgreSQL
is a portmanteau, from which springs many of our problems.

Ron Peterson notes:
> It's google'able.  Think of all of the documentation out there which
> refers to PostgreSQL.  When people start searching for 'postgres'
> they'll get virtually nothing.

Sure they do: 5.7 million results, including postgresql.org as the first hit.
"Postgres" is the name the great majority of people use anyway. It's the name
of the OS user and the default database we create alongside template1. And the
nice thing is that it is still a unique word, so it won't get swallowed up in
lots of other words (e.g. "Oracle" and "Firebird")

> Why 'Postgres'?  Any marketing effort this large should start from
> scratch, and consider all possibilities, not just default to something
> barely different for the sake of easing the terrible pronunciation
> challenge.

It's not so much a marketing effort as realizing that our current name
is unwieldy, prone to errors in spelling, translation, and pronunciation,
and is quickly changed to "Postgres" by most anyway. Being "barely different"
is a strength, not a weakness. One thing is for sure is that Postgres is really
the only option here, we're not going to rebrand the entire project like
firefox did, if that's your implied suggestion. :)

> Maybe some people don't like PostgreSQL, but why assume everyone likes
> 'Postgres' better.  I don't.

What's your alternative?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFG00PevJuQZxSWSsgRA8aTAJsFXIpwajz5kqg3iTf0LNPjm7AtuQCggEJF
oYO2hW3I5lQNYkrlPWG3VNc=
=W+Xy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> I'm pretty sure that "Postgres" would have little to none of the
> pronunciation problems that PostgreSQL has. Also, MySQL is a compound,
> while PostgreSQL is a portmanteau, from which springs many of our
> problems.

PostgreSQL is a *suitcase*?

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

On Monday 27 August 2007 17:50, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty sure that "Postgres" would have little to none of the
> > pronunciation problems that PostgreSQL has. Also, MySQL is a compound,
> > while PostgreSQL is a portmanteau, from which springs many of our
> > problems.
>
> PostgreSQL is a *suitcase*?

an overcoat

On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 11:43:46AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Also note that I was chatting with Kaj Arno at OSCON, and he was bitching
> about people mispronouncing "MySQL".  So don't assume that shortening our
> name would necessarily help ...

MySqueal?
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Nobody says we have to go crazy and hunt down and change every single reference.
> "Postgres" would simply be the preferred and official name, while "PostgreSQL"
> would be the older, alternative spelling.

And note that this is not much different than today - where
it seems there already are 2 "official" names.  I see many
people from Core saying it's OK to call it "postgres".

In spoken usage at conferences, sales meetings it seems
to be 90% "Postgres", some "PostgreS S.Q.L." and some
"Postgre Sequel" (after all - that's what the current
capitalization implies) and "postgre" - and I'd say a
small minority of spoken usage saying "Postgres QL".

If one simply makes "Postgres" the "prefered official name"
and "PostgreSQL" the "accepted alternative name" it seems
no worse than the current practice.    And with some regular
expression passes over parts of the web site it seems
it'd quickly get better than the current state of 2 official
and one common unofficial names.

>> That's a very qualitative judgement though, and
>> if there was overwhelming support in the community

I think the change would be nice - just so that many
presentations don't need to spend time discussing
this point - but then again I've recently been avoiding
the topic in sales calls and meetings with exec
management by saying it's built on a database
"similar to EnterpriseDB". :-)

2007-08-27_17:37:19-0400 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>:
> Ron Peterson notes:
> > It's google'able.  Think of all of the documentation out there which
> > refers to PostgreSQL.  When people start searching for 'postgres'
> > they'll get virtually nothing.

> Sure they do: 5.7 million results, including postgresql.org as the
> first hit.  "Postgres" is the name the great majority of people use
> anyway.

5.7 million is not "virtually nothing", but you can't say the "great
majority" of people use the term "postgres" when "postgresql" returns 27
million hits.  Call me daft, but I prefer to increase my odds of finding
relevant results by a factor of four or more.

> It's not so much a marketing effort as realizing that our current name
> is unwieldy, prone to errors in spelling, translation, and pronunciation,
> and is quickly changed to "Postgres" by most anyway.

Why do you say it is changed to Postgres by most?  Google, at least,
seems to disagree.  That said, I will say that I have run across a fair
number of people, most of whom know little or nothing about PostgreSQL,
who tend to use the term "Postgres".  Considering that PostgreSQL has
been the official name for quite some time, it is certainly noteworthy
that people still gravitate to another name.

> > Maybe some people don't like PostgreSQL, but why assume everyone
> > likes 'Postgres' better.  I don't.

> What's your alternative?

I like the status quo.  If I _were_ going to change the name, I would
wait until a major point release; and for the purpose of not appearing
fickle, I'd try to market the name change with a better slogan than
"PostgreSQL is now now Postgres - Because PostgreSQL is hard to spell!"
I think changing the name of a product is a really big deal, and it
needs to be tied to something significant, or it appears flighty, and
makes the project seem a little untethered.

I also think Postgres sounds too much like Ingres.  Nothing against
Ingres or PostgreSQL's heritage, but it sounds anachronistic to me.

That said, there are a lot of people who have put a lot more into
PostgreSQL than I have, and I would certainly defer to their opinion on
this.

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 09:40:29PM -0400, Ron Peterson wrote:
> 2007-08-27_17:37:19-0400 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>:
> > Ron Peterson notes:
> > > It's google'able.  Think of all of the documentation out there which
> > > refers to PostgreSQL.  When people start searching for 'postgres'
> > > they'll get virtually nothing.
>
> > Sure they do: 5.7 million results, including postgresql.org as the
> > first hit.  "Postgres" is the name the great majority of people use
> > anyway.
>
> 5.7 million is not "virtually nothing", but you can't say the "great
> majority" of people use the term "postgres" when "postgresql" returns 27
> million hits.  Call me daft, but I prefer to increase my odds of finding
> relevant results by a factor of four or more.

The google hits argument is no reason not to change the name. There will
*always* be more hits for PostgreSQL as long as that's the name that's
on our website, etc. So what? The fact that there's a competing term
that's popular enough to stand on it's own tells me we already have a
problem.

> > > Maybe some people don't like PostgreSQL, but why assume everyone
> > > likes 'Postgres' better.  I don't.
>
> > What's your alternative?
>
> I like the status quo.  If I _were_ going to change the name, I would
> wait until a major point release; and for the purpose of not appearing
> fickle, I'd try to market the name change with a better slogan than
> "PostgreSQL is now now Postgres - Because PostgreSQL is hard to spell!"

Folks, please stop talking about spelling, because that's *not* the
issue here at all. If it was, we'd just call the database asdf (or aoeu
for dvorak users).

This has always been about pronunciation. How to pronounce the name is
probably one of the most common questions I get... how can people think
that isn't hurting advocacy efforts?

> I think changing the name of a product is a really big deal, and it
> needs to be tied to something significant, or it appears flighty, and
> makes the project seem a little untethered.

I think we can just as easily make the change without any real fanfare
at all. I've gotten tired of using my real name in the PostgreSQL world
(because everywhere else I'm known by my nickname), so I've been slowly
migrating to not using my real name. I bet until recently (when I
changed the name part of my email address) very few people noticed. Even
with that change, no one has asked me about it yet. In the case of
PostgreSQL->Postgres, we're talking about dropping 2 letters and
changing the case of one, which is very minor. I see no reason why we
can't just silently make the change and let it be.

> I also think Postgres sounds too much like Ingres.  Nothing against
> Ingres or PostgreSQL's heritage, but it sounds anachronistic to me.

If anything I think it might lend more credence to Ingres, but I'm not
terribly worried about that. Afterall, Postgres was created with the
idea of improving the ideas that were the foundation of Ingres.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

Decibel! wrote:
> I think we can just as easily make the change without any real fanfare
> at all.

I'm inclined to agree. For the most part we could all just slowly change
things to 'Postgres'. I doubt anyone would really notice, except we'd
get fewer people getting it wrong!

> I've gotten tired of using my real name in the PostgreSQL world
> (because everywhere else I'm known by my nickname), so I've been slowly
> migrating to not using my real name. I bet until recently (when I
> changed the name part of my email address) very few people noticed. Even
> with that change, no one has asked me about it yet.

If it makes you feel any better I've been meaning to, just haven't
gotten round to it yet :-).

/D

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:06, Dave Page wrote:
> Decibel! wrote:
> > I think we can just as easily make the change without any real fanfare
> > at all.
>
> I'm inclined to agree. For the most part we could all just slowly change
> things to 'Postgres'. I doubt anyone would really notice, except we'd
> get fewer people getting it wrong!

How about a vote?

How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0' reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the
tonsof work involved out of the debate for the moment)? 



Robert

On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:06 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>> I've gotten tired of using my real name in the PostgreSQL world
>> (because everywhere else I'm known by my nickname), so I've been
>> slowly
>> migrating to not using my real name. I bet until recently (when I
>> changed the name part of my email address) very few people
>> noticed. Even
>> with that change, no one has asked me about it yet.
>
> If it makes you feel any better I've been meaning to, just haven't
> gotten round to it yet :-).

Shhh! You're hurting my argument! :P
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

On Aug 28, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Robert Bernier wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:06, Dave Page wrote:
>> Decibel! wrote:
>>> I think we can just as easily make the change without any real
>>> fanfare
>>> at all.
>>
>> I'm inclined to agree. For the most part we could all just slowly
>> change
>> things to 'Postgres'. I doubt anyone would really notice, except we'd
>> get fewer people getting it wrong!
>
> How about a vote?
>
> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> involved out of the debate for the moment)?

I vote we just make the change without any fuss, ASAP. But I'll take
any kind of change over sticking with PostgreSQL.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

Robert Bernier a écrit :
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:06, Dave Page wrote:
>> Decibel! wrote:
>>> I think we can just as easily make the change without any real fanfare
>>> at all.
>> I'm inclined to agree. For the most part we could all just slowly change
>> things to 'Postgres'. I doubt anyone would really notice, except we'd
>> get fewer people getting it wrong!
>
> How about a vote?
>
> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0' reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the
tonsof work involved out of the debate for the moment)? 
>

I don't.


--
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
     http://lfs.traduc.org/
     http://docs.postgresqlfr.org/ -->

Robert Bernier wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 11:06, Dave Page wrote:
> > Decibel! wrote:
> > > I think we can just as easily make the change without any real fanfare
> > > at all.
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree. For the most part we could all just slowly change
> > things to 'Postgres'. I doubt anyone would really notice, except we'd
> > get fewer people getting it wrong!
>
> How about a vote?
>
> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> involved out of the debate for the moment)?

+1

I agree with the name change.  I'm not sure why delay to 9.0 though;
doing it for 8.3 is fine.

Whether 8.3 will actually be 9.0 is another question.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Alvaro,

> Whether 8.3 will actually be 9.0 is another question.

No, it's not.  It's possible that 8.4 will end up being 9.0, but 8.5 seems
more likely.  There's no reason to be eager about it ... once we get to 10.0,
we give the package builders fits.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> +1
>
> I agree with the name change.  I'm not sure why delay to 9.0 though;
> doing it for 8.3 is fine.

Well, if we're playing the voting game:

+1

/D

On 8/28/07, Robert Bernier <robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0' reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the
tonsof work involved out of the debate for the moment)? 

+1

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor            | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

On Tue, 2007-28-08 at 11:15 -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> involved out of the debate for the moment)?

+1 -- I think we should make the name change, but I don't have any
strong preference about when we ought to do it (now, for 8.3, for 8.4,
etc -- I wouldn't necessarily want to wait for some far-off theoretical
9.0 release).

-Neil

On 28/08/2007 16:15, Robert Bernier wrote:

> How about a vote?
>
> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> involved out of the debate for the moment)?

+1

I agree with doing it without any fanfare.

Ray.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland
rod@iol.ie
---------------------------------------------------------------

> > How about a vote?
> >
> > How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> > reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> > involved out of the debate for the moment)?

+1

> I agree with doing it without any fanfare.


I wonder.

Wouldn't it be a good marketing move to put a "vote for a name change" on the website's front page? The idea would be
tomake announcements all over the place like slashdot, digg etc. and asking the average joe for his input. You know the
saying,"there's no such thing as bad press". 

Thoughts?

Robert

I actually think a nice tongue and cheek campaign could work nicely
here.  Not a massive corporate-like PR push...  but a humorous (we don't
take ourselves too seriously) letter or blog post, etc.

Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bernier
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:23 PM
To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
PostgreSQL)

> > How about a vote?
> >
> > How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> > reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> > involved out of the debate for the moment)?

+1

> I agree with doing it without any fanfare.


I wonder.

Wouldn't it be a good marketing move to put a "vote for a name change"
on the website's front page? The idea would be to make announcements all
over the place like slashdot, digg etc. and asking the average joe for
his input. You know the saying, "there's no such thing as bad press".

Thoughts?

Robert

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

With or without fanfare, I'm +1

On 8/28/07, Robert Bernier <robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > How about a vote?
> > >
> > > How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> > > reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> > > involved out of the debate for the moment)?
>
> +1
>
> > I agree with doing it without any fanfare.
>
>
> I wonder.
>
> Wouldn't it be a good marketing move to put a "vote for a name change" on the website's front page? The idea would be
tomake announcements all over the place like slashdot, digg etc. and asking the average joe for his input. You know the
saying,"there's no such thing as bad press". 
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

I have been avoiding voting on this topic.  But. . .

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:

> > > How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> > > reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> > > involved out of the debate for the moment)?

First, discussing this without reference to the work it would cause
and such like is foolish.  You don't commit to doing something only
because it would be a nice idea; you also do it recognising that
spending the time doing that thing entails you don't have other time
for other things you might like.  So how much work it might be is a
_critical piece of information_ for deciding what you should do.  The
glib responses in this thread suggest to me that at least some people
haven't worked through that.  Moreover,

> Wouldn't it be a good marketing move to put a "vote for a name
> change" on the website's front page? The idea would be to make
> announcements all over the place like slashdot, digg etc. and
> asking the average joe for his input. You know the saying, "there's
> no such thing as bad press".

this strikes me as a plan to get all manner of people all over the
Net -- many of whom maybe hate Postgres -- to come and suggest that
_other_ people do work for a cosmetic change.  I also don't believe
that claim that there's no such thing as bad press.  If you disagree,
ask the engineers of the Corvair.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens."
        --Bruce Schneier

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).

Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
that we may do so.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1GyzATb/zqfZUUQRAsSTAJ9tO9G8mXmmVjyxEEih5FWVQqrm4ACffgs8
rZ2ljARoGxKVigtndKJnCps=
=om6H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 14:11, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I have been avoiding voting on this topic.  But. . .
>
> First, discussing this without reference to the work it would cause
> and such like is foolish...

This sounds like basing a decision on getting the most benefit with the least amount of work.

I respectfully counter your argument by suggesting that in this matter the effort, although significant, is justified
bythe benefits. 

I argue that the exercise of debating and, if it comes to pass, implementation has benefits that far outweighs the
effort.


> this strikes me as a plan to get all manner of people all over the
> Net -- many of whom maybe hate Postgres -- to come and suggest that
> _other_ people do work for a cosmetic change.

And I really do believe it when I say that there's no such thing as bad press

> I also don't believe
> that claim that there's no such thing as bad press.  If you disagree,
> ask the engineers of the Corvair.

Comments from the marketing  / sales crowd.... yes that includes you too Rich?


Robert

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
> disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
> owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
>
> Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
> note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
> that we may do so.

First, thanks for letting us know this before people get too settled on
something :) At least those of us who missed it last time(s)...

Second, this makes my own vote much easier: a clear -1 on the change
(unless cmd would be donating that name+domains to the pg fund or
something, but given that you didn't suggest that I don't expect that to
happen)

//Magnus

On 8/28/07, Robert Bernier <robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> How about a vote?
>
> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0' reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the
tonsof work involved out of the debate for the moment)? 

0 (abstain)

While I do think that 'Postgres' has advantages over 'PostgreSQL',
I don't think we should drop PostgreSQL.  Something which is
defacto already happening, as usually the default database is
'postgres', user is 'postgres' and so on.  At the same time I wouldn't
want package maintainers to change package name from 'postgresql'
to 'postgres' [again].  I wouldn't want Sun to need to update brochures
that they support Postgres (formerly known as PostgreSQL).

Personally I would like to use names 'PostgreSQL Relational Database
Managament System', short form: Postgres with PostgreSQL as an
acceptable, though deprecated, alternative.

   Regards,
     Dawid

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
>> disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
>> owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
>>
>> Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
>> note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
>> that we may do so.
>
> First, thanks for letting us know this before people get too settled on
> something :) At least those of us who missed it last time(s)...
>
> Second, this makes my own vote much easier: a clear -1 on the change
> (unless cmd would be donating that name+domains to the pg fund or
> something, but given that you didn't suggest that I don't expect that to
> happen)

well I already stated earlier that I don't really like that change so -1
here too ...


Stefan

Joshua D. Drake wrote: 

Hello,

Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).

Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
that we may do so.   

First, thanks for letting us know this before people get too settled on
something :) At least those of us who missed it last time(s)...

Second, this makes my own vote much easier: a clear -1 on the change
(unless cmd would be donating that name+domains to the pg fund or
something, but given that you didn't suggest that I don't expect that to
happen)
 

Magnus,

Notice that Josh owns postgresINC.com/net/org   I am still a +1
regardless of that.  While Josh could change his name, he would have to
balance the loss of the CommandPrompt collateral that he has already
garnered.  It is not as simple a change as PostgreSQl to Postgres.

Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
forward.

Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:magnus@hagander.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:47 PM
To: Joshua D. Drake
Cc: Derek Rodner; Robert Bernier; pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
PostgreSQL)

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
> disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
> owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
>
> Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I
will
> note that if the project changes its name, it increases the
possibility
> that we may do so.

First, thanks for letting us know this before people get too settled on
something :) At least those of us who missed it last time(s)...

Second, this makes my own vote much easier: a clear -1 on the change
(unless cmd would be donating that name+domains to the pg fund or
something, but given that you didn't suggest that I don't expect that to
happen)

//Magnus

JD,

> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
> > disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
> > owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).


Would it possible for you to state your 'official' position on the various outcomes that this current debate could
take?

Robert

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Bernier wrote:
> JD,
>
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
>>> disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
>>> owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
>
>
> Would it possible for you to state your 'official' position on the various outcomes that this current debate could
take?

Color me dense, but "what?", do you mean do I think the project should
change its name or not?

Joshua D. Drake


>
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------(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
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1HFuATb/zqfZUUQRAlgAAJ0X9MJcn+PcOpjm8uVxvhe6uucpZgCcCAC8
5N2baggyRuL/tdrYgf1DWV8=
=JFVp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 15:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Color me dense, but "what?", do you mean do I think the project should
> change its name or not?

You say that the name change is significant to you. What does that mean?

I'm asking about all those wonderfull legal and business issues that must be dealt with if this hits the proverbial fan
visa vis Command Prompt and the community at large. 

Robert

Derek Rodner wrote:
> Brian,
>
>
>
> I respectfully disagree.  It can’t just be the maintainers that make the
> decision.  In reality, there should be a marketing board for Postgres
> and those folks should make the decision in coordination with all
> parties involved including those who would have to change doc, those who
> would have to change code, etc.  I know advocacy was supposed to be the
> marketing-like group, but it is too big of a group with too many
> opinions that don’t matter, mine included.

imho this decision is one that -core has to take in the end
>
>
>
> What we should do (here comes my marketing speak) is talk to those who
> matter, USERS.  There is an old saying in marketing:  Your opinion,
> though interesting, is irrelevant.  The reality is that we are all on
> the “inside” and are too jaded.  If PostgreSQL were a company, we would
> talk to analysts, customers, prospects, etc. and make a decision based
> on that.


First PostgreSQL is not a company it is a vital, large and successful
OSS project ...

Second the natural extension of that thought is that in the future we
will simply have users vote on what feature they want and have an "end
user board" that decides what features the developers have to implement ?

Stefan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Bernier wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 15:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Color me dense, but "what?", do you mean do I think the project should
>> change its name or not?
>
> You say that the name change is significant to you. What does that mean?

I still don't understand what you are asking. I never said it was
significant to me, I said:

Hello,

Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).

Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
that we may do so.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> I'm asking about all those wonderfull legal and business issues that must be dealt with if this hits the proverbial
fanvis a vis Command Prompt and the community at large. 
>
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1HQVATb/zqfZUUQRAqaBAKCgIn2PH0tmklZTBfB6lqUWDTfllgCfaymj
CT3z4gHxqRab4shQ3Qr3Mu8=
=H+/d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Ditto, I don't see the difference between that and Marc's PostgreSQL
Inc (pgsql.com)

Gavin

On 8/28/07, Derek Rodner <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Magnus,
>
> Notice that Josh owns postgresINC.com/net/org   I am still a +1
> regardless of that.  While Josh could change his name, he would have to
> balance the loss of the CommandPrompt collateral that he has already
> garnered.  It is not as simple a change as PostgreSQl to Postgres.
>
> Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
> benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
> forward.
>
> Derek M. Rodner
> Director, Product Strategy
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> 732.331.1333 office
> 484.252.1943 cell
> www.enterprisedb.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:magnus@hagander.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 2:47 PM
> To: Joshua D. Drake
> Cc: Derek Rodner; Robert Bernier; pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
> PostgreSQL)
>
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
> > disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
> > owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
> >
> > Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I
> will
> > note that if the project changes its name, it increases the
> possibility
> > that we may do so.
>
> First, thanks for letting us know this before people get too settled on
> something :) At least those of us who missed it last time(s)...
>
> Second, this makes my own vote much easier: a clear -1 on the change
> (unless cmd would be donating that name+domains to the pg fund or
> something, but given that you didn't suggest that I don't expect that to
> happen)
>
> //Magnus
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>

> On 8/28/07, Derek Rodner <derek.rodner@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>
>> Notice that Josh owns postgresINC.com/net/org   I am still a +1

From what I understand, he also owns the "company name" "postgres, inc"
for whatever that means in the US system.

>> regardless of that.  While Josh could change his name, he would have to
>> balance the loss of the CommandPrompt collateral that he has already
>> garnered.  It is not as simple a change as PostgreSQl to Postgres.

No. And he'd also have to balance the badwill he'd get from the
community over it. Which explains why he hasn't changed already :-P


>> Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
>> benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
>> forward.

Gavin M. Roy wrote:
> Ditto, I don't see the difference between that and Marc's PostgreSQL
> Inc (pgsql.com)

Yeah. And you think the presence of PostgreSQL Inc isn't a problem
today? No offense to Marc, both he and PostgreSQL Inc has done a lot of
good things, but it certainly does *not* help the community to have a
company named the same way as our OSS product that claims 7.4 has just
been released and nothing has happened with us since 7.4.


//Magnus

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 15:14, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Robert Bernier wrote:
> > You say that the name change is significant to you. What does that mean?
>
> I still don't understand what you are asking. I never said it was
> significant to me...

If you own the name and you mention it then it's a significant issue. Otherwise...


Robert

Actually, Stefan, that isn't a bad idea either (within reason).  The
most successful companies are those who listen, really listen, to their
customers.  Having an end-user board that has some oversight is actually
not a bad idea in any situation.

I would be interested to see if any other open source projects do it.
That way you don't go implementing Klingon as a supported language when
everyone is really developing in Wookie these days.

The reality, though, is that (with the exception of me, sort of) the
developers of PostgreSQL are actually the end users, so we sort of do it
anyway.

Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner [mailto:stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc]
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:11 PM
To: Derek Rodner
Cc: Brian Hurt; Magnus Hagander; Joshua D. Drake; Robert Bernier;
pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
PostgreSQL)

Derek Rodner wrote:
> Brian,
>
>
>
> I respectfully disagree.  It can't just be the maintainers that make
the
> decision.  In reality, there should be a marketing board for Postgres
> and those folks should make the decision in coordination with all
> parties involved including those who would have to change doc, those
who
> would have to change code, etc.  I know advocacy was supposed to be
the
> marketing-like group, but it is too big of a group with too many
> opinions that don't matter, mine included.

imho this decision is one that -core has to take in the end
>
>
>
> What we should do (here comes my marketing speak) is talk to those who
> matter, USERS.  There is an old saying in marketing:  Your opinion,
> though interesting, is irrelevant.  The reality is that we are all on
> the "inside" and are too jaded.  If PostgreSQL were a company, we
would
> talk to analysts, customers, prospects, etc. and make a decision based
> on that.


First PostgreSQL is not a company it is a vital, large and successful
OSS project ...

Second the natural extension of that thought is that in the future we
will simply have users vote on what feature they want and have an "end
user board" that decides what features the developers have to implement
?

Stefan

Josh,

I think what Robert is asking is:

If PostgreSQL becomes Postgres, do you intend to change Command Prompt
to Postgres, Inc.?

Derek M. Rodner
Director, Product Strategy
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1333 office
484.252.1943 cell
www.enterprisedb.com

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Joshua D.
Drake
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 3:14 PM
To: Robert Bernier
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
PostgreSQL)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert Bernier wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 15:03, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Color me dense, but "what?", do you mean do I think the project
should
>> change its name or not?
>
> You say that the name change is significant to you. What does that
mean?

I still don't understand what you are asking. I never said it was
significant to me, I said:

Hello,

Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).

Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
that we may do so.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> I'm asking about all those wonderfull legal and business issues that
must be dealt with if this hits the proverbial fan vis a vis Command
Prompt and the community at large.
>
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1HQVATb/zqfZUUQRAqaBAKCgIn2PH0tmklZTBfB6lqUWDTfllgCfaymj
CT3z4gHxqRab4shQ3Qr3Mu8=
=H+/d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Derek Rodner wrote:
> Josh,
>
> I think what Robert is asking is:
>
> If PostgreSQL becomes Postgres, do you intend to change Command Prompt
> to Postgres, Inc.?

To which I have answer now three times :):

Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
that we may do so.


Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1HYxATb/zqfZUUQRAvbuAJ4vaj89BM+2c6a6+K9zaj4roRz/mwCfXNCn
0QpyRIHo2g7TfWLenkXU9Jg=
=/EKX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2007-08-28_10:53:41-0400 Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>:

> The google hits argument is no reason not to change the name.

It is.  When people start searching for information using the term
"postgres" they will be missing out on the vast majority of available
information for years.

It's also an argument against the OP's assertion that most people use
the name "Postgres" rather than "PostgreSQL".

> Folks, please stop talking about spelling, because that's *not* the
> issue here at all.

I was merely poking a little fun with a caricature, but OK: "PostgreSQL
is now Postgres! - Because we don't know how to pronounce PostgreSQL!"
IMHO, that still makes PostgreSQL advocacy efforts sound rather amateur.
I don't think projects as large and important and PostgreSQL should be
rebranded without devoting serious attention to the details, market
perception, etc.

> I see no reason why we can't just silently make the change and let it
> be.

Because it's not a small matter.  Maybe PostgreSQL never should have
been the name, but it happened, time has passed, and we're in a
different place now.

I'm really not that opposed to changing the name, but I think this
effort is being promoted too glibly; without enough serious
consideration given to the consequences.  "Forget about the effort",
"forget about google", "let's vote on slashdot", etc.

If this were 9.0, and there were a big reason for this to be 9.0, that
might be a good time for a name change.  I just disagree that this
can/should be done "silently" without any fanfare and with no real
justification other than helping the tongue tied.  No one knows how to
pronounce "Linux" either - is that hurting adoption?

Whatever my little opinion might be, though, I still think the big dogs
should decide this.

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

Derek,

> Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
> benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
> forward.

You say that because you weren't around when PostgreSQL, Inc. was active.
There was a time when the *first* question I had to answer at a booth was
to explain that we were not PostgreSQL, Inc.  I don't want to go back to
that time.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 15:17, Derek Rodner wrote:
> Actually, Stefan, that isn't a bad idea either (within reason).  The
> most successful companies are those who listen, really listen, to their
> customers.  Having an end-user board that has some oversight is actually
> not a bad idea in any situation.
>
> I would be interested to see if any other open source projects do it.
> That way you don't go implementing Klingon as a supported language when
> everyone is really developing in Wookie these days.

http://www.bsdcertification.org/

They've done extensive international polling and analysis of the BSD community developing worldwide systems
adminstrationstandards. 

Robert

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Derek,
>
>> Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
>> benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
>> forward.
>
> You say that because you weren't around when PostgreSQL, Inc. was active.
> There was a time when the *first* question I had to answer at a booth was
> to explain that we were not PostgreSQL, Inc.  I don't want to go back to
> that time.

Nor do I. However, that was a different time and a time when PostgreSQL
was barely known, which is certainly not the case now.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake




- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1He1ATb/zqfZUUQRAo9BAJ0TL6whnVxPp2cQ3NDmP/7CbljxqACgoHeS
XO2loyRnmoPnYVKyBjE/P+M=
=hBEA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:44:26PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
>
> This sounds like basing a decision on getting the most benefit with
> the least amount of work.

I am unaware of a better mechanism by which one decides which work to
do.  The important thing is what "most benefit" means; and that turns
out to be hard to unpack.

> I respectfully counter your argument by suggesting that in this
> matter the effort, although significant, is justified by the
> benefits.

So what are they?  That people can pronounce the name more easily?
This discussion heaves into sight every now and then (this time, much
to my chagrin, it's my fault.  I'll know better than to make bad
jokes in public in the future!).  I agree that the name is
unfortunate.  But I just say "Postgres" most of the time, and people
seem to know what I'm taking about -- and yet no Official Changing of
Names has happened.

The thing is, I keep hearing claims that the name is a problem
significant enough to do work to change it.  But why is it a problem?
Marketing, apparently.  Ok, then, we need some market research.  I
don't believe that the name itself is the biggest barrier -- just
that the name is not "Oracle".  If someone has _data_ (not a war
story about the amusing last mispronunciation heard), I'd like to see
it.

> I argue that the exercise of debating and, if it comes to pass,
> implementation has benefits that far outweighs the effort.

How do you know that?  So far, I have seen no serious discussion of
what the costs of a name change might be, or what the benefits could
be were we to adopt something else.  There _will_ be confusion, work
for package maintainers, nasty upgrade problems with oldbies who say,
"Oh, I don't want Postgres; I want the SQL-engine one," and edits to
the manual.  Old links might break.  Marketing materials would need
to be reprinted (the project just bought a large trade-show banner,
for instance; we throw it away under this plan).  Logos need
re-designing.  These aren't free activities: they require at least
time, and maybe cash money too.  It seems to me that something more
concrete than, "It won't cost much, and it'll have lotsa big
benefits," is needed as an argument to back it up.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
A certain description of men are for getting out of debt, yet are
against all taxes for raising money to pay it off.
        --Alexander Hamilton

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 15:40, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:44:26PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
> >
> > This sounds like basing a decision on getting the most benefit with
> > the least amount of work.
>
> I am unaware of a better mechanism by which one decides which work to
> do.  The important thing is what "most benefit" means; and that turns
> out to be hard to unpack.

Many companies and govt agencies work only hard enough that they can say
something was accomplished. It speaks of environment that is bereft of
resources and must make do with what they have i.e. they lack investment
resourcess

>
> > I respectfully counter your argument by suggesting that in this
> > matter the effort, although significant, is justified by the
> > benefits.
>
> So what are they?

Community participation. Constructive debate makes for a community with a more
people skilled membership.

The name change question is worthy of a discussion ... an administrative
discussion... with pros and cons in the context of becoming better known in
the world, And then a decision is made. For the record; although I believe in
the name change I still have yet to learn the full cost. I don't think
anybody does for that matter. We need to sit down and calculate the manhours
and the required skillset.

Don't underestimate language: No disrespect but I find that unilingual
speakers lack the perspective to appreciate the needs of those outside their
culture. I remind you that the largest and most vibrant segment of the
PostgreSQL community doesn't even speak English (sic Japan).

> > I argue that the exercise of debating and, if it comes to pass,
> > implementation has benefits that far outweighs the effort.
>
> How do you know that?

It's an axiom that practice makes perfect. Debating sharpens people's skills
in identifying the real decision making issues.

> So far, I have seen no serious discussion of
> what the costs of a name change might be, or what the benefits could
> be were we to adopt something else.

I agree. A definite number crunching exercise.

Successful projects typically run in cycles of three.

One example of taking a big investment risk is General Motors. They went
through three failed design teams before they found one that agreed with
senior management that it was possible to make aluminum engines and then did
it.

Another car example is the policy that the Japanese car mfg followed by hiring
graduate engineers to assume the positions that union blue collar workers
were doing in North America. They believed that there was more profit in
valuing quality than what the big American car mfg were (and I remember when
the big five laughed at the Japanese approach too).

> There _will_ be confusion, work
> for package maintainers, nasty upgrade problems...

yup. lots of work but still worth the effort of asking the question

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 12:34, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-28-08 at 11:15 -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
> > How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> > reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> > involved out of the debate for the moment)?
>
> +1 -- I think we should make the name change, but I don't have any
> strong preference about when we ought to do it (now, for 8.3, for 8.4,
> etc -- I wouldn't necessarily want to wait for some far-off theoretical
> 9.0 release).
>

If we were going to do it, I might suggest to not do it at release time, lest
people get the impression that the rename should signify some new level of
instability.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} Postgres

Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Derek Rodner wrote:
> > Brian,
> >
> >
> >
> > I respectfully disagree.  It can?t just be the maintainers that make the
> > decision.  In reality, there should be a marketing board for Postgres
> > and those folks should make the decision in coordination with all
> > parties involved including those who would have to change doc, those who
> > would have to change code, etc.  I know advocacy was supposed to be the
> > marketing-like group, but it is too big of a group with too many
> > opinions that don?t matter, mine included.
>
> imho this decision is one that -core has to take in the end

Uh, actually no, at least in the past.  Back in 1996 when we chose
PostgreSQL over Postgres, the core group didn't want PostgreSQL for
reasons mentioned (see
http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/great_steps.pdf, slide 22ff). The
bottom line in that case is that the user community chose the name, even
though core thought it would lead to the problems we have found,
including the pronouncability issue.  (The "SQL" was added to highlight
that we now had SQL, rather than QUEL, so at the time there was a
purpose for the "SQL", but obviously not now, i.e. everyone knows we
have SQL.)

Off topic, this highlights something I have said privately to folks but
not as much publicly.  Core tries to do as little as possible,
particularly so non-core feel as involved in the project as core.  Core
officially only handle discipline issues and cases where a company needs
to speak to the project privately.  We also can break a vote tie.  In
almost every other case, our sway is only as strong as our public
arguments in email threads.  This style has served our community well
and hopefully will continue indefinitely.

(FYI, a few weeks ago David Fetter stated I had less sway than in the
past.  I should have replied that I hope I always hold no sway.  I and
other core members should never hold any special sway in discussions
except based on the validity of our opinions and judgement stated in the
discussion, i.e. not because we are core members.)

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
[ There is text before PGP section. ]
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: RIPEMD160
>
>
> Apologies, Andrew, but I think this is a very important topic, and
> one that should be addressed.
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > My perspective on the naming question is that if we wanted to do it, we needed
> > to do it for 8.0 which was when PostgreSQL became much higher profile.  We
> > did seriously evaluate it at that time, but the amount of effort involved
> > would have held up the release and we decided not to.
>
> That's not my recollection. I recall battling to make 7.5 into 8.0, but there was
> no real debate about a name change at that time. Since then, however, I've talked to
> lots of people about changing the name and found no real objection, only
> support, including from most of Core. Even Tom Lane admits it was a mistake:
> http://tinyurl.com/2v4fdl

FYI, I have always been in favor of a name change, in 1996, and before
8.0, but of course I am only one vote.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> I have been avoiding voting on this topic.  But. . .
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
>
> > > > How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> > > > reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> > > > involved out of the debate for the moment)?
>
> First, discussing this without reference to the work it would cause
> and such like is foolish.  You don't commit to doing something only
> because it would be a nice idea; you also do it recognising that
> spending the time doing that thing entails you don't have other time
> for other things you might like.  So how much work it might be is a
> _critical piece of information_ for deciding what you should do.  The
> glib responses in this thread suggest to me that at least some people
> haven't worked through that.  Moreover,

OK, let's look at the items required for a name change.  Right now our
FAQ says "Postgres" is an acceptable name for "PostgreSQL", so the idea
of allowing Postgres as an alternative is already done.  Our backend
binary is called "postgres", which we got from the Berkely days and
never changed to "PostgreSQL".

Items to change include:

    1)  URLs, can use redirection
    2)  Documentation, search/replace
    3)  email list names, keep pgsql-*
    4)  web site content, search/replace
    5)  tarball names
    6)  source code copyright notice
    7)  postgresql.conf, rename

The user API has nearly zero change, which is good;  nearly everything
is "pg".  (We still call our C library libpq because it was originally
PostQUEL.)

As you can see, it isn't much.  Renaming sounds like a monumental
change, but in fact the name is kind of just what we call ourselves.

I think an interesting approach would be to change the software name to
Postgres but keep the community/project name as PostgreSQL Global
Development Group.  That would allow us to keep using both and minimize
changes.  It would allow the places we don't change to remain accurate.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Hi,

I am not going to comment on what the project or software should be
called. However, I do think that there should be only one name in
advocacy. There can be a period when there are two names used, but I
don't see that as a long term solution. Name, logo etc. are things that
should not have too many versions. For example with having both Postgres
and PostgreSQL, we will end up in discussions that what is the
difference between PostgreSQL inc, PostgreSQL community, Postgres
community and Postgres inc. Each having different kind of elephants on
their logos. It will not look very trustworthy. More like one is real
and the others are scam. Just don't know which is the original and real
one. And then having all the prints with different versions etc. (Just
because X likes the other one better, the next T-shirts are with one
brand. But the booth is under a name that is different.) And after all,
how can you get consistent results from a database that is called
differently on different occasions? ;-)

Rgs,

Jussi








Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
>
>> I have been avoiding voting on this topic.  But. . .
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
>>>>> reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
>>>>> involved out of the debate for the moment)?
>>>>>
>> First, discussing this without reference to the work it would cause
>> and such like is foolish.  You don't commit to doing something only
>> because it would be a nice idea; you also do it recognising that
>> spending the time doing that thing entails you don't have other time
>> for other things you might like.  So how much work it might be is a
>> _critical piece of information_ for deciding what you should do.  The
>> glib responses in this thread suggest to me that at least some people
>> haven't worked through that.  Moreover,
>>
>
> OK, let's look at the items required for a name change.  Right now our
> FAQ says "Postgres" is an acceptable name for "PostgreSQL", so the idea
> of allowing Postgres as an alternative is already done.  Our backend
> binary is called "postgres", which we got from the Berkely days and
> never changed to "PostgreSQL".
>
> Items to change include:
>
>     1)  URLs, can use redirection
>     2)  Documentation, search/replace
>     3)  email list names, keep pgsql-*
>     4)  web site content, search/replace
>     5)  tarball names
>     6)  source code copyright notice
>     7)  postgresql.conf, rename
>
> The user API has nearly zero change, which is good;  nearly everything
> is "pg".  (We still call our C library libpq because it was originally
> PostQUEL.)
>
> As you can see, it isn't much.  Renaming sounds like a monumental
> change, but in fact the name is kind of just what we call ourselves.
>
> I think an interesting approach would be to change the software name to
> Postgres but keep the community/project name as PostgreSQL Global
> Development Group.  That would allow us to keep using both and minimize
> changes.  It would allow the places we don't change to remain accurate.
>
>

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 12:29:57PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > Derek,
> >
> >> Regardless, even if Josh changes the company name, I believe that the
> >> benefits far outweigh that potential negative and we should move
> >> forward.
> >
> > You say that because you weren't around when PostgreSQL, Inc. was active.
> > There was a time when the *first* question I had to answer at a booth was
> > to explain that we were not PostgreSQL, Inc.  I don't want to go back to
> > that time.
>
> Nor do I. However, that was a different time and a time when PostgreSQL
> was barely known, which is certainly not the case now.

Well, there's a very simple way for you to ensure that's not an issue.
:)
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 17:29, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Items to change include:
>
>     1)  URLs, can use redirection
>     2)  Documentation, search/replace
>     3)  email list names, keep pgsql-*
>     4)  web site content, search/replace
>     5)  tarball names
>     6)  source code copyright notice
>     7)  postgresql.conf, rename
>

I hereby offer to help with the documentation portion of the name change. Just point me in the right direction and
we'llwork it out from there. 

Robert

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:22:50PM -0400, Ron Peterson wrote:
> 2007-08-28_10:53:41-0400 Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>:
>
> > The google hits argument is no reason not to change the name.
>
> It is.  When people start searching for information using the term
> "postgres" they will be missing out on the vast majority of available
> information for years.

Has anyone actually looked at what those 27M PostgreSQL hits are? I'm
betting that 90% of them are duplicate copies of mailing list traffic.
If you exclude content generated by us (which doesn't count because we
can change the name via sed), I'm betting there's just barely 5M web
pages about us (which would account for all the Postgres hits).
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Tuesday, August 28, 2007 21:15:50 +0200 Magnus Hagander
<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:


> Yeah. And you think the presence of PostgreSQL Inc isn't a problem
> today? No offense to Marc, both he and PostgreSQL Inc has done a lot of
> good things, but it certainly does *not* help the community to have a
> company named the same way as our OSS product that claims 7.4 has just
> been released and nothing has happened with us since 7.4.

There is actually a *huge* difference here ... joshua will/would be actively
pushing/marketing "Postgres, Inc" ... PostgreSQL, Inc hasn't done either for
over 2 years now ... I've even started to scale back the web site itself ...

- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG1Kyc4QvfyHIvDvMRAqbwAKCg7li2DmZbVqSydTTOUWgrfhPlnQCgvr9/
UAzwaTHFpL5uZB87BPPn2Jc=
=EF/n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Decibel! wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 03:22:50PM -0400, Ron Peterson wrote:
>> 2007-08-28_10:53:41-0400 Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>:
>>
>>> The google hits argument is no reason not to change the name.
>> It is.  When people start searching for information using the term
>> "postgres" they will be missing out on the vast majority of available
>> information for years.
>
> Has anyone actually looked at what those 27M PostgreSQL hits are? I'm
> betting that 90% of them are duplicate copies of mailing list traffic.
> If you exclude content generated by us (which doesn't count because we
> can change the name via sed), I'm betting there's just barely 5M web
> pages about us (which would account for all the Postgres hits).

The only thing that matters is the first 10-12 hits on the first page.

Joshua D. Drake


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1LSkATb/zqfZUUQRAnkqAJ43dkkf1JHWBpaqFpVwau1U2bu7iwCfWclS
flhG2ylem2uWz9jTLbF5kXU=
=Ze+m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

The bottom line for me is that when people say PostgreSQL for the first
time they are never sure they are doing it right.  That can't be good
for us.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> The bottom line for me is that when people say PostgreSQL for the
> first
> time they are never sure they are doing it right.  That can't be good
> for us.

If the immediate response to someone who has problems with their
postgres system on IRC / email weren't "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!"
that'd be less of a problem. It's an ugly blemish on what are otherwise
very helpful peer support fora.

Cheers,
   Steve

> > Yeah. And you think the presence of PostgreSQL Inc isn't a problem
> > today? No offense to Marc, both he and PostgreSQL Inc has done a lot of
> > good things, but it certainly does *not* help the community to have a
> > company named the same way as our OSS product that claims 7.4 has just
> > been released and nothing has happened with us since 7.4.
>
> There is actually a *huge* difference here ... joshua will/would be actively
> pushing/marketing "Postgres, Inc" ... PostgreSQL, Inc hasn't done either for
> over 2 years now ... I've even started to scale back the web site itself ...

Yes. while we don't *know* that will happen this has the potential of being worse, at least.

On the website issue, I've been meaning to ask you: since your news page isn't actually updated anymore, would you
considerremoving it or at least add info to  
it saying it's not updated? there are probably other parts out of date too, but that's the worst one I think.

/Magnus

Steve Atkins wrote:
>
> On Aug 28, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> The bottom line for me is that when people say PostgreSQL for the first
>> time they are never sure they are doing it right.  That can't be good
>> for us.
>
> If the immediate response to someone who has problems with their
> postgres system on IRC / email weren't "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!"
> that'd be less of a problem. It's an ugly blemish on what are otherwise
> very helpful peer support fora.

this usually only happens when somebody uses "postgre" - never seen
people complain about "postgres" ...


Stefan

Stefan, other English and German speakers:

> this usually only happens when somebody uses "postgre" - never seen
> people complain about "postgres" ...

This travel season I spent considerable time in Brazil and Italy.  Thing is,
there is *no* reasonable way to pronounce "PostgreSQL" with a Portuguese or
Italian accent.  It's a tongue-twister.

Given that it's more important to us that the Brazillian, Italian and
Spanish-speaking communities grow and get active in the worldwide community,
can we cut them some slack on pronounciation?   Can we please stop knee-jerk
reacting to an understandable mispronunciation / abbreviation?

Honestly, it makes our community sound like the people who insist on
"Gnu/Linux" all the time or "Lego Brand Building Blocks".

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

Am Dienstag, 28. August 2007 18:34 schrieb Neil Conway:
> On Tue, 2007-28-08 at 11:15 -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
> > How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
> > reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
> > involved out of the debate for the moment)?
>
> +1 -- I think we should make the name change, but I don't have any
> strong preference about when we ought to do it (now, for 8.3, for 8.4,
> etc -- I wouldn't necessarily want to wait for some far-off theoretical
> 9.0 release).

I agree with that.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

+1 for renaming to Postgres ASAP, and if we can employ a little self-deprecating humor, all the better.



On 8/28/2007 1:29 PM Derek Rodner wrote:
> I actually think a nice tongue and cheek campaign could work nicely
> here.  Not a massive corporate-like PR push...  but a humorous (we don't
> take ourselves too seriously) letter or blog post, etc.
>
> Derek M. Rodner
> Director, Product Strategy
> EnterpriseDB Corporation
> 732.331.1333 office
> 484.252.1943 cell
> www.enterprisedb.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Bernier
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:23 PM
> To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] The naming question (Postgres vs
> PostgreSQL)
>
>>> How about a vote?
>>>
>>> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
>>> reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
>>> involved out of the debate for the moment)?
>
> +1
>
>> I agree with doing it without any fanfare.
>
>
> I wonder.
>
> Wouldn't it be a good marketing move to put a "vote for a name change"
> on the website's front page? The idea would be to make announcements all
> over the place like slashdot, digg etc. and asking the average joe for
> his input. You know the saying, "there's no such thing as bad press".
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Robert
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
> ---------------------------(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
>
>

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 11:36:14PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Honestly, it makes our community sound like the people who insist on
> "Gnu/Linux" all the time or "Lego Brand Building Blocks".

It's GNU/Linux. ;P
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


I'm going to work on  totally re-doing that site ...

- --On Wednesday, August 29, 2007 07:41:14 +0200 Magnus Hagander
<magnus@hagander.net> wrote:

>> > Yeah. And you think the presence of PostgreSQL Inc isn't a problem
>> > today? No offense to Marc, both he and PostgreSQL Inc has done a lot of
>> > good things, but it certainly does *not* help the community to have a
>> > company named the same way as our OSS product that claims 7.4 has just
>> > been released and nothing has happened with us since 7.4.
>>
>> There is actually a *huge* difference here ... joshua will/would be actively
>> pushing/marketing "Postgres, Inc" ... PostgreSQL, Inc hasn't done either for
>> over 2 years now ... I've even started to scale back the web site itself ...
>
> Yes. while we don't *know* that will happen this has the potential of being
> worse, at least.
>
> On the website issue, I've been meaning to ask you: since your news page
> isn't actually updated anymore, would you consider removing it or at least
> add info to  it saying it's not updated? there are probably other parts out
> of date too, but that's the worst one I think.
>
> /Magnus
>



- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG1Qsh4QvfyHIvDvMRAvJKAJ9jBRcAihOVhO9hBZkn+XZrCariUACffIk+
AjXZWJF3ANi5MnNgnw93R5M=
=zp1I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Stefan, other English and German speakers:
>
>> this usually only happens when somebody uses "postgre" - never seen
>> people complain about "postgres" ...
>
> This travel season I spent considerable time in Brazil and Italy.  Thing is,
> there is *no* reasonable way to pronounce "PostgreSQL" with a Portuguese or
> Italian accent.  It's a tongue-twister.
>
> Given that it's more important to us that the Brazillian, Italian and
> Spanish-speaking communities grow and get active in the worldwide community,
> can we cut them some slack on pronounciation?   Can we please stop knee-jerk
> reacting to an understandable mispronunciation / abbreviation?

We could and I do but many won't. Those that won't it is up to the
community to smack them, not the pronouncer.

Joshua D. Drake


>
> Honestly, it makes our community sound like the people who insist on
> "Gnu/Linux" all the time or "Lego Brand Building Blocks".
>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1YaJATb/zqfZUUQRAjC1AKCgSDr+2ZS27CPWT1hpEGeDsjSpYwCeNSg0
pejdrDpTQZEFQuxDVT7dF/k=
=pc3X
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-1,

Personally, I find PostgreSQL better. I think it has more character than
Postgres

Hi,

First, this is my last email on this topic.  I don't actually care
that much if people want to change the name.  I'm just trying to
point out that it seems to me to be more work than people think, that
it might actually do harm by introducing another variable to the
message right when marketing efforts appear to be yielding some
fruit, and that it will cost us not only time, but money.  That said,

On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 05:29:03PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> OK, let's look at the items required for a name change.  Right now our
> FAQ says "Postgres" is an acceptable name for "PostgreSQL", so the idea
> of allowing Postgres as an alternative is already done.

Right.  So why are we wasting time on all the other stuff?

>     1)  URLs, can use redirection

Yes, but the "branding" people tell me that what you really want to
do is get people to stop using the old form eventually.  To do that,
you have to set a date for the end of redirection, and you have to
have a plan to meet that date without losing people.

>     3)  email list names, keep pgsql-*

Oh, that'll be intuitive to a new user.  "Hmm, I have this product
called 'postgres', so _of course_ the list name is 'pgsql-general'."
If the point of this change is to reduce confusion, then the "SQL"
has to be removed _everywhere_ within one release.  Otherwise, people
who know nothing about us will be asking, for years, "Why did you
fork from the PostgreSQL project?"

>     4)  web site content, search/replace

You can't do "search/replace" on images. On the web page, for
example, we have hdr_left.png right at the top.  Apparently, the
person who designed some of these things for us is no longer around,
and we don't have the font that was used.

And maybe it won't look as good when rendered as "Postgres".  We have
to consider the possibility that the renaming will require
redesigning all sorts of graphical elements; and that only a minority
of the community has any graphic design skills.

>     5)  tarball names

And all the scripts that generate these things, as well as all sorts
of scripts that random people (i.e. established users) all over the
world might have.  Some of those people won't be watching this list,
and we don't know how they'll find out about the name change.
Changing these supports scripts will then be one more thing they need
to do before upgrading, and so that's yet another drag on getting
people to stop using old releases and get the benefits of the new
software.

I want to point out that the various Mozilla name changes were not
without pain for their users, and they _have_ a giant marketing
machine that takes out adverts in newspapers.  We have a committed
group, but many of us are (let's be honest) basically geeks with at
best faint clues of what works for marketing to CTOs and the like.

>     6)  source code copyright notice
>     7)  postgresql.conf, rename

See above about scripts.  Do you _really_ want to make every package
maintainer adjust any scripts they have for copyright notice checking
or postgresql.conf adjustment?  Do you need to form some new
unincorporated "Postgres Global Development Group" to work on the
newly-named software, or use the old expansion of PGDG?  If the
latter, will it be confusing to users (or anxiety-producing to
potential users, who are already skittish about this strange thing
where a bunch of geeks on the Internet write and give away the
software the potential user is considering)?

Will the apparent regular name changes cause people to suppose that
the development community breaks up and forks a lot?  Will the name
changes cause software distributors to distribute both the last
version of PostgreSQL and the new Postgres, because the latter is
obviously a fork of the former?  Will we be inundated with questions
like, "Is the Postgres fork new code?  Does it use
threads/mmap/Java/Ruby/other SuperKeenFeature?"

I don't know the answers to these things; but it seems to me they
_need_ answers before changes happen.  When you change the name of a
piece of software, you have no problem communicating it to the users
you're in regular contact with.  But the users that you're _not_ in
regular contact with -- never mind the users you don't have yet --
may end up confused or needlessly anxious, because you have taken
something familiar and changed it in a way that is very visible.  For
software that, to a lot of people, "Just works, so I don't think
about it," you're _making_ them think about it.  It might be worth
that cost, but we need to figure out what the effects might be before
we cause them.

> I think an interesting approach would be to change the software name to
> Postgres but keep the community/project name as PostgreSQL Global
> Development Group.  That would allow us to keep using both and minimize
> changes.  It would allow the places we don't change to remain accurate.

It will also cause utter confusion among people who already think
this whole free software thing is a little funny: "These clowns can't
even keep their name straight.  What's wrong with them?"  If you
change, you can't do it part way.  The _status quo_, where everybody
just says, "Postgres is a short form," is understandable.  It's way
harder to say, "Oh, right, well, that part of the web site didn't get
updated after the name change."  I can tell you that many of the
pointier-haired types I know would dismiss the whole project on the
basis of that sloppiness alone.  And that'd be a possible user we lose.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
However important originality may be in some fields, restraint and
adherence to procedure emerge as the more significant virtues in a
great many others.   --Alain de Botton

Just one comment:

On 8/29/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
>
> >       4)  web site content, search/replace
>
> You can't do "search/replace" on images. On the web page, for
> example, we have hdr_left.png right at the top.  Apparently, the
> person who designed some of these things for us is no longer around,
> and we don't have the font that was used.
>
> And maybe it won't look as good when rendered as "Postgres".  We have
> to consider the possibility that the renaming will require
> redesigning all sorts of graphical elements; and that only a minority
> of the community has any graphic design skills.

I've already modified the header and mailed it to the list in this thread.

Gavin

Andrew,

> You can't do "search/replace" on images. On the web page, for
> example, we have hdr_left.png right at the top.  Apparently, the
> person who designed some of these things for us is no longer around,
> and we don't have the font that was used.

Gavin did this, and it doesn't look as good.  So we'd have to also re-do some
of the design elements of the web site.

> I don't know the answers to these things; but it seems to me they
> _need_ answers before changes happen.  When you change the name of a
> piece of software, you have no problem communicating it to the users
> you're in regular contact with.  But the users that you're _not_ in
> regular contact with -- never mind the users you don't have yet --
> may end up confused or needlessly anxious, because you have taken
> something familiar and changed it in a way that is very visible.

And I'll point out that "users we don't know" comprises 80% (if you only count
DBAs) to 99% (if you count embedded users) of our userbase.  For example,
think of the 40 million hardware devices with PostgreSQL on them.  The
companies that make those devices will have to *automatically* handle a name
change, on a large-scale, long-distance-deployed basis.  If it's sufficiently
painful, some of them will just switch databases ... most could be using
SQLite or Derby anyway.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco

> Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
> disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
> owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).
>
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "Command Prompt owns the name Postgres,
Inc"...

A quick search of the USPTO shows no trademarks for postgres - or even
command prompt (it does show an abandoned trademark for "Mammoth" as in
Mammoth PostgreSQL).  I'm not sure what you mean by "owns the name", but
I suspect if you do then it probably carries no interstate weight...  I
couldn't find the name registered as a DBA in the state of Oregon
either, but I suspect the records search there isn't complete - since in
many states DBA names are done at a county - not a state - level.

As a side note - to the best of my knowledge - there's nothing that
prevents Command Prompt (or anyone) forming a company called
'PostgreSQL, Inc.' and doing business under that name...  Likewise,
there's nothing that prevents EnterpriseDB from forming a company called
"Command Prompt, Inc" if they so desire...

Of course, I'm not a trademark lawyer, so I only speak with my (very
limited) knowledge of such things....and would love to be enlightened
with regard to such things if I'm wrong (which is very possible ;-) ) .

Owning the domain is AFAIK, a far cry from owning the name...

--
Chander Ganesan
The Open Technology Group
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC  27560
Phone: 877-258-8987/919-463-0999
http://www.otg-nc.com

Neil Conway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-28-08 at 11:15 -0400, Robert Bernier wrote:
>> How many people feel we should adopt 'postgres' for the '9.0'
>> reference documentation (let's leave the issue of the tons of work
>> involved out of the debate for the moment)?
>
> +1 -- I think we should make the name change, but I don't have any
> strong preference about when we ought to do it (now, for 8.3, for 8.4,
> etc -- I wouldn't necessarily want to wait for some far-off theoretical
> 9.0 release).

+1.

Decoupling it from a major release and doing at
8.3.1 might be best.

If there'll be a transition period where both "PostgreSQL"
and "Postgres" are acceptable anyway - there's no need that
it has to be tied to a major release; and this way core can
stay focused on the technology during the release period.

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Before anyone goes down this path too far it is very important that I
> disclose (as I have on multiple occasions before) that Command Prompt
> owns the name Postgres, Inc (and domains postgresinc.com/net/org).

Not "postgresqlinc.com"?   :-)

> Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
> note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
> that we may do so.

Hmm - how about trading names - then Command Prompt could be
"The [official] PostgreSQL Company".   [ 50% :-) ]

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> To which I have answer now three times :):
>
> Although we do not have intention to immediately change our name, I will
> note that if the project changes its name, it increases the possibility
> that we may do so.

But what remains confusing in your answers is what you intend to change
your name to? "MySQLSQL Inc."? "Command Prompt SQL Inc."?

Doesn't it seem that if you wanted to change your name
to "Postgres Inc" it'd be better for you to do so with the
project still  named "PostgreSQL" rather than if there's an
existing project named "Postgres"?

Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> There _will_ be confusion, work
> for package maintainers, nasty upgrade problems with oldbies who say,
> "Oh, I don't want Postgres; I want the SQL-engine one," and edits to
> the manual.

For those people, perhaps we rename "postmaster" to "postSQLmaster"
so they don't get too confused and can still see that SQL's in there
somewhere.

More seriously - I agree that there's work - but if there's a transition
period where "postgres" is the preferred name and "postgresql" is the
alternative acceptable name that work doesn't have to be a time-critical crisis.

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> (FYI, a few weeks ago David Fetter stated I had less sway than in the
> past.  I should have replied that I hope I always hold no sway.  I and
> other core members should never hold any special sway in discussions
> except based on the validity of our opinions and judgement stated in the
> discussion, i.e. not because we are core members.)

You guys (all core) DO hold more sway because you've spent
many years earning the trust of the community.  I for
one think you understand the issues surrounding topics like
this far more than most of us do - if for no other reason
than because you were exposed to them longer.

I'd love to know what each member of core feels about the
name; along with the reasons why.  Indeed such explanations
probably would sway many people's votes because I suspect
your reasons will be based on more experience than ours.

Ron Peterson wrote:
> 2007-08-28_10:53:41-0400 Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>:
>> The google hits argument is no reason not to change the name.
> It is.  When people start searching for information using the term
> "postgres" they will be missing out on the vast majority of available
> information for years.

Some silver lining on this one, though - they'll mostly miss out
on older info like the "PostgresQL 6.2.1 on Red Hat 5.0 is slow"
comparison pages.

Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Steve Atkins wrote:
>> If the immediate response to someone who has problems with their
>> postgres system on IRC / email weren't "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!"
>> that'd be less of a problem. It's an ugly blemish on what are otherwise
>> very helpful peer support fora.
>
> this usually only happens when somebody uses "postgre" - never seen
> people complain about "postgres" ...
>

The reason people assume "Postgre" is the right short form is
because that's what the current capitalization "PostgreSQL"
implies.

If the name is changed to "PostgreS" you may still
have the problem.   With "Postgres" it won't be.

If the name is changed to "PostgresQL" the "postgre"
problem would probably go away - but I think most would
agree that changing to "PostgresQL" is rather silly.



PS:  If the name remains "PostgreSQL" I think the project should
make "Postgre" an official acceptable short form as well - because
that's how any new user will read it anyway.

Ron Mayer wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > Steve Atkins wrote:
> >> If the immediate response to someone who has problems with their
> >> postgres system on IRC / email weren't "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!"
> >> that'd be less of a problem. It's an ugly blemish on what are otherwise
> >> very helpful peer support fora.
> >
> > this usually only happens when somebody uses "postgre" - never seen
> > people complain about "postgres" ...
> >
>
> The reason people assume "Postgre" is the right short form is
> because that's what the current capitalization "PostgreSQL"
> implies.
>
> If the name is changed to "PostgreS" you may still
> have the problem.   With "Postgres" it won't be.
>
> If the name is changed to "PostgresQL" the "postgre"
> problem would probably go away - but I think most would
> agree that changing to "PostgresQL" is rather silly.

Consider that with PostgresQL, URLs, email list names, postgresql.conf,
searches don't have to change at all, and we have something that is more
clearly pronounceable.

> PS:  If the name remains "PostgreSQL" I think the project should
> make "Postgre" an official acceptable short form as well - because
> that's how any new user will read it anyway.

I don't think anyone likes Postgre, at least English-speakers.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On Wednesday 29 August 2007 16:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I don't think anyone likes Postgre, at least English-speakers.

Actually " Postgré " sounds pretty good in French (although I still wouldn't want it changed to this)

Robert

Ron Mayer wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > There _will_ be confusion, work
> > for package maintainers, nasty upgrade problems with oldbies who say,
> > "Oh, I don't want Postgres; I want the SQL-engine one," and edits to
> > the manual.
>
> For those people, perhaps we rename "postmaster" to "postSQLmaster"
> so they don't get too confused and can still see that SQL's in there
> somewhere.

Actually, the daemon got renamed -- it's not called "postmaster"
anymore, nowadays (8.3) the name is "postgres".  The old name still
works though.

--
Alvaro Herrera                          Developer, http://www.PostgreSQL.org/
"Y eso te lo doy firmado con mis lágrimas" (Fiebre del Loco)

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>>> If the immediate response to someone who has problems with their
>>>> postgres system on IRC / email weren't "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!"
>>>> that'd be less of a problem. It's an ugly blemish on what are otherwise
>>>> very helpful peer support fora.
>
>> PS:  If the name remains "PostgreSQL" I think the project should
>> make "Postgre" an official acceptable short form as well - because
>> that's how any new user will read it anyway.
>
> I don't think anyone likes Postgre, at least English-speakers.

I agree people don't like it - but it would fix the worse
problem of many new users's first experience with postgresql
being the "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!" welcome that Steve
mentioned upthread.

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>>> If the immediate response to someone who has problems with their
>>>> postgres system on IRC / email weren't "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!"
>>>> that'd be less of a problem. It's an ugly blemish on what are otherwise
>>>> very helpful peer support fora.
>
>> PS:  If the name remains "PostgreSQL" I think the project should
>> make "Postgre" an official acceptable short form as well - because
>> that's how any new user will read it anyway.
>
> I don't think anyone likes Postgre, at least English-speakers.

I agree people don't like it - but it would fix the (worse?)
problem of many new users's first experience with postgresql
being the "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!" welcome that Steve
mentioned upthread.

Robert Bernier wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2007 16:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I don't think anyone likes Postgre, at least English-speakers.
>
> Actually " Postgré " sounds pretty good in French (although I still
> wouldn't want it changed to this)

Maybe we should change it to Postgret then? :-)

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Bernier wrote:
>> On Wednesday 29 August 2007 16:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> I don't think anyone likes Postgre, at least English-speakers.
>> Actually " Postgré " sounds pretty good in French (although I still
>> wouldn't want it changed to this)
>
> Maybe we should change it to Postgret then? :-)
>

Well I suggested Acidix to Bruce ;)

Joshua D. Drake

- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1e55ATb/zqfZUUQRAsvJAKCupn+37KK2lKgIJy0fxwXsMj/vUgCePTKG
hKRlxmVbqUl8XZN0w5g3E7k=
=+/Ma
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wednesday 29 August 2007 17:52, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Bernier wrote:
> > On Wednesday 29 August 2007 16:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I don't think anyone likes Postgre, at least English-speakers.
> >
> > Actually " Postgré " sounds pretty good in French (although I still
> > wouldn't want it changed to this)
>
> Maybe we should change it to Postgret then? :-)

Regret? ;-)

Gabriele Bartolini a écrit :
> 3) we have invested time and money in organising merchandising (some of
> which is i18n-compliant too, such as t-shirts, notepads, eco-friendly
> shoppers and pens) with PostgreSQL logo and title on such items

I think PostgreSQLfr and postgresql.de share the same problems. I know
PostgreSQLfr does : we have posters, flyers, t-shirts, shirts, etc. I
don't want to put all this in the trash because of a name change.

>     It goes without saying that all this stuff won't be usable anymore
> if we decide to change name in the short term. I would rather suggest to
> properly plan a name switch and promote it and inform the community in
> the next couple of years. Maybe something like: "From 2009 it will be
> Postgres again".
>

This is a better idea. I'm against the name change but this will make it
less hard for both non profit organizations and companies.

>    We must acknowledge that the community is not only people that
> develop PostgreSQL or use it daily, but also companies and users around
> the world that have based their products on PostgreSQL and ... I feel
> like we should inform them properly and give them enough time to plan
> their strategies (if any).
>
> For instance, what about a company that uses PostgreSQL as their backend
> DB and has prepared promotional stuff that states that: I guess it would
> be more fair if at least we give this company the chance to change its
> flyers / promotional info accordingly or at least plan it.
>

Companies can have money to handle this but that won't make them happy
to re-print promotional flyers, re-work their website, re-write their
training courses, re-print their training manuals, etc. Some won't do
it. But I think the real problem will come from non profit
organizations. We, PostgreSQLfr, as a non profit organization, don't
have so much money so that we can afford to waste it.

And what will you do when someone will ask about which book to read
about Postgres ? search amazon about PostgreSQL books ? I know that a
"Postgres" search will give them "PostgreSQL" books but it will cause
confusion too.

Regards.


--
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
     http://lfs.traduc.org/
     http://docs.postgresqlfr.org/ -->

Bruce Momjian a écrit :
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>> Steve Atkins wrote:
>>>> If the immediate response to someone who has problems with their
>>>> postgres system on IRC / email weren't "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!"
>>>> that'd be less of a problem. It's an ugly blemish on what are otherwise
>>>> very helpful peer support fora.
>>> this usually only happens when somebody uses "postgre" - never seen
>>> people complain about "postgres" ...
>>>
>> The reason people assume "Postgre" is the right short form is
>> because that's what the current capitalization "PostgreSQL"
>> implies.
>>
>> If the name is changed to "PostgreS" you may still
>> have the problem.   With "Postgres" it won't be.
>>
>> If the name is changed to "PostgresQL" the "postgre"
>> problem would probably go away - but I think most would
>> agree that changing to "PostgresQL" is rather silly.
>
> Consider that with PostgresQL, URLs, email list names, postgresql.conf,
> searches don't have to change at all, and we have something that is more
> clearly pronounceable.
>

So the product name will be Postgres, the binary is already postgres and
the configuration file will still have the name postgresql.conf. This
will be great to explain at training courses. This will cause confusion.
This will cause questions on mailing lists and booths.

I'm still against the name change but I rather prefer a complete change
than a change on the more easy strings to "search and replace".

Regards.


--
Guillaume.
<!-- http://abs.traduc.org/
     http://lfs.traduc.org/
     http://docs.postgresqlfr.org/ -->

+1 for change to Postgres as soon as practical.

The "SQL" part is a vestigial appendage, a wart on the product - makes
it feel elite, distant, non-friendly.

- Luke

On 8/30/07, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian a écrit :
> > Ron Mayer wrote:
> >> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> >>> Steve Atkins wrote:
> >>>> If the immediate response to someone who has problems with their
> >>>> postgres system on IRC / email weren't "Yer sayin' it wrong, dummy!"
> >>>> that'd be less of a problem. It's an ugly blemish on what are otherwise
> >>>> very helpful peer support fora.
> >>> this usually only happens when somebody uses "postgre" - never seen
> >>> people complain about "postgres" ...
> >>>
> >> The reason people assume "Postgre" is the right short form is
> >> because that's what the current capitalization "PostgreSQL"
> >> implies.
> >>
> >> If the name is changed to "PostgreS" you may still
> >> have the problem.   With "Postgres" it won't be.
> >>
> >> If the name is changed to "PostgresQL" the "postgre"
> >> problem would probably go away - but I think most would
> >> agree that changing to "PostgresQL" is rather silly.
> >
> > Consider that with PostgresQL, URLs, email list names, postgresql.conf,
> > searches don't have to change at all, and we have something that is more
> > clearly pronounceable.
> >
>
> So the product name will be Postgres, the binary is already postgres and
> the configuration file will still have the name postgresql.conf. This
> will be great to explain at training courses. This will cause confusion.
> This will cause questions on mailing lists and booths.
>
> I'm still against the name change but I rather prefer a complete change
> than a change on the more easy strings to "search and replace".
>
> Regards.
>


I agree with Guillaume and Gabriele.
Probably everything seems fine in advocacy list but I don't think that
enterprises and users will agree with a sudden change of name.
A thing like this can be a boomerang making PostgreSQL nasty at people
that now love it :(

As suggested by Gabriele a soft change is more suitable.

Kind regards
Federico
--
Federico Campoli is:
@ PLUG -> Consigliere, http://www.prato.linux.it
PostgreSQL Consulting  -> PGHost http://www.pghost.eu

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Gabriele Bartolini a écrit :
>> 3) we have invested time and money in organising merchandising (some of
>> which is i18n-compliant too, such as t-shirts, notepads, eco-friendly
>> shoppers and pens) with PostgreSQL logo and title on such items
>
> I think PostgreSQLfr and postgresql.de share the same problems. I know
> PostgreSQLfr does : we have posters, flyers, t-shirts, shirts, etc. I
> don't want to put all this in the trash because of a name change.

All of the advocacy communities share the same problems and I agree with
what you say above.

Joshua D. Drake


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1t8aATb/zqfZUUQRAgXMAJ9DW4fdExcQxcjeTAxBgoiraiODvQCfZwb9
bW0ucnsaxOWV2Js9Ww7h6O0=
=J3AD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160


Josh Berkus wrote:

> For example, think of the 40 million hardware devices with PostgreSQL on
> them.  The companies that make those devices will have to *automatically*
> handle a name change, on a large-scale, long-distance-deployed basis.
> If it's sufficiently painful, some of them will just switch databases ...
> most could be using SQLite or Derby anyway.

Switch databases because they have to rename something?! Even if they did
have to rename, which they don't at all, that's hardly going to cause them
to rewrite all their code to support a new database. Especially since
switching to Derby will cause them to have to change the name AND the code. :)


Gabriele Bartolini devilishly advocated:

> It goes without saying that all this stuff won't be usable anymore if we
> decide to change name in the short term.

I think we are getting a little silly here. If the preferred project name is
changed, nothing will _have_ to get thrown out, changed, etc. PostgreSQL can
remain an acceptable synonym from here until the end of time. There will
be little to no confusion - a simple FAQ item should cover it:

Q: Why do some places use "Postgres" and some use "PostgreSQL"?

A: In October 2007 the project changed its official name from PostgreSQL
to Postgres, in recognition of the fact that PostgreSQL was difficult to
pronounce and encouraged incorrect abbreviations such as "Postgre", and
in recognition of the fact that most people ended up saying "Postgres" anyway.
Much of the documentation still says PostgreSQL, which is a perfectly
acceptable way to refer to the project. While both "Postgres" and "PostgreSQL"
refer to the same project, "Postgres" is now the preferred form.


Andrew Sullivan asked:

> Otherwise, people who know nothing about us will be asking, for years,
> "Why did you fork from the PostgreSQL project?"

Simple enough to answer: "We didn't, we just changed the name". Could even
be a FAQ. I'd rather have that question, than these ones:

"How do you say that?"
"Why does it have such a stupid name?"
"Is it okay to just say 'Postgres'?"

> But the users that you're _not_ in regular contact with -- never mind the
> users you don't have yet -- may end up confused or needlessly anxious,
> because you have taken something familiar and changed it in a way that
> is very visible.

But it is already referred to in many places by both names, so I can't
really envision this confusion happening.

For the record, I see no reason to rename postgresql.conf or go crazy - we're
not trying to do a Soviet Russia/1984 rewrite of history and
documentation purge - we're just switching from saying that Postgres is
an accepted alternative name to saying that Postgres is the preferred name.

A few other notes:

1. We somehow survived with an executable named "postmaster" for many years,
so people use our product despite non-matching names.

2. I don't care if it is tied to a release or not. Let's just do it, keep
it low key (no contests, etc.), and move on.

3. I don't think polls are very accurate or useful, but I also don't really
know a way to measure "community opinion". Mailing lists tend to get people
on the ends of the bell curve. I will say that I've talked to people at both
PG conferences and at OSCON quite a bit, and never received any resistance to
the idea. As someone else said, it would be good to hear Core's opinion on
this matter (although we've heard from almost all of them individually at
this point). I recognize that Core tries to stay hands off, but this is
ultimately a decision they should make (or bless) (if not the rename, then
at least the timing).

4. The whole domain name thing with Command Prompt is silly. If they want
to name themselves Postgres, Inc, so be it. If people are uncomfortable with
that happening, it's very unlikely the change will happen anyway, as you
don't want to anger the community and ecosystem that you need to survive.
As long as the community controls postgres.org and postgresql.org, we're good.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200708301248
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFG1vfuvJuQZxSWSsgRA9b7AJ4jfWhOhhBbMNC0fkGzaYEtv3zcgACggXgc
RWwbFs/NUb7DEyqcoikeEvc=
=tD+F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> Josh Berkus wrote:

> I think we are getting a little silly here. If the preferred project name is
> changed, nothing will _have_ to get thrown out, changed, etc. PostgreSQL can
> remain an acceptable synonym from here until the end of time. There will
> be little to no confusion - a simple FAQ item should cover it:
>
> Q: Why do some places use "Postgres" and some use "PostgreSQL"?

Greg, with respect. This is bogus.

1. Nobody reads FAQs except the people who wrote it
2. In marketing, a name is extremely important.

PostgreSQL does not equal Postgres

All of those materials will need to be reprinted, remanufactured, and
redesigned. Otherwise we look like a bunch of hacks, and not in the good
way.

We will also spend many hours declaring to people:

1. Why we changed
2. Did we think it was a good change
3. Re-educating press
4. Constantly fixing our own mistakes for the people that have been
doing this for a decade.

Joshua D. Drake


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1vn+ATb/zqfZUUQRAn4VAKCZ0aXkAxLf/wwTq0d4tx2OZHKNfgCfeJs4
iC0DjaTg+Ickf9enjFvOpOc=
=ZO4g
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> > Otherwise, people who know nothing about us will be asking, for years,
> > "Why did you fork from the PostgreSQL project?"
>
> Simple enough to answer: "We didn't, we just changed the name". Could even
> be a FAQ. I'd rather have that question, than these ones:
>
> "How do you say that?"
> "Why does it have such a stupid name?"
> "Is it okay to just say 'Postgres'?"

We can eliminate 1/2 of this FAQ:

     1.1) What is PostgreSQL? How is it pronounced?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I think we are getting a little silly here. If the preferred project name is
> > changed, nothing will _have_ to get thrown out, changed, etc. PostgreSQL can
> > remain an acceptable synonym from here until the end of time. There will
> > be little to no confusion - a simple FAQ item should cover it:
> >
> > Q: Why do some places use "Postgres" and some use "PostgreSQL"?
>
> Greg, with respect. This is bogus.
>
> 1. Nobody reads FAQs except the people who wrote it
> 2. In marketing, a name is extremely important.
>
> PostgreSQL does not equal Postgres
>
> All of those materials will need to be reprinted, remanufactured, and
> redesigned. Otherwise we look like a bunch of hacks, and not in the good
> way.
>
> We will also spend many hours declaring to people:
>
> 1. Why we changed
> 2. Did we think it was a good change
> 3. Re-educating press
> 4. Constantly fixing our own mistakes for the people that have been
> doing this for a decade.

Again, long term vs. short term. If we don't change it we will be having
awkward pronunciations forever, and taking the marketing hit for that
forever.  There is going to be short term pain, but long term gain.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>> We will also spend many hours declaring to people:
>>
>> 1. Why we changed
>> 2. Did we think it was a good change
>> 3. Re-educating press
>> 4. Constantly fixing our own mistakes for the people that have been
>> doing this for a decade.
>
> Again, long term vs. short term. If we don't change it we will be having
> awkward pronunciations forever, and taking the marketing hit for that
> forever.  There is going to be short term pain, but long term gain.

This seems backward to me. Long term thinking usually involves more
problems than a singular issue.

The *only* issue of validity that I have seen in regards to the name
change is the fact that it is hard to pronounce.

However, the weight, and size of the issues brought up over what happens
"if" we change, are significant.

What I see happening is a decision trying to be made on the basis that
people want to stop having this argument.

I have an idea. Let's just say, the name is PostgreSQL, which it already
is and has been for 11 years and isn't going to change. Put that in the
FAQ and when people ask, you point there :)

That way we can all focus on actually doing something productive versus
arguing in this thread yet again about which editor is better, vi or
emacs. Oh and just to be clear, the answer is joe.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1wBUATb/zqfZUUQRAhIVAKCuQ/fyO6t1+Y9N5VmFPqCJwUhT6wCgpr+P
f3zwhn+ypDMdceq8k9pnOpY=
=sOFk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Again, long term vs. short term. If we don't change it we will be having
> > awkward pronunciations forever, and taking the marketing hit for that
> > forever.  There is going to be short term pain, but long term gain.
>
> This seems backward to me. Long term thinking usually involves more
> problems than a singular issue.
>
> The *only* issue of validity that I have seen in regards to the name
> change is the fact that it is hard to pronounce.
>
> However, the weight, and size of the issues brought up over what happens
> "if" we change, are significant.
>
> What I see happening is a decision trying to be made on the basis that
> people want to stop having this argument.

No, people want to someday be able to stop having to deal with
mispronunciations and people worried about talking about PostgreSQL
because they are afraid they will say it wrong.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Let me ask a question, how many people who are against a name change now
think we should have done it before we released 8.0?  Because the same
arguments I hear now are the ones I heard then.  There was a feeling
pre-8.0 that we were too entrenched to make a change, but in hindsight
we were not that entrenched, but now we are really entrenched.  What I
think we will find in two years it that many will wish we had made the
change pre-8.3 because in two years we will be even more entrenched than
we are now.

The bottom line is that the pronunciation/marketing problem with the
name "PostgreSQL" is not going to change --- it is only going to get
worse.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Let me ask a question, how many people who are against a name change now

> The bottom line is that the pronunciation/marketing problem with the
> name "PostgreSQL" is not going to change --- it is only going to get
> worse.

I am against the name change and I do not agree with your assessment. I
believe it will get better. As the only real problem is the initial
understanding and pronunciation. The rest is muscle memory.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1x4AATb/zqfZUUQRAiAaAJsFuoXcsNtTfKeI39izYoGmrlNBMwCfY6D9
cBTJB1WtslvmV0sgF7KEfdI=
=WLlk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
we have:

    1) No change
    2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
    3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
    4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
    5) Change the name to "Postgres"

I have ordered the items from least to most invasive. Given the
discussion, I think no option is going to get unanimous approval, so no
matter what we choose some people are going to be disappointed.

I think we have already done #2 in FAQ item #1, so one approach would be
to choose #3 and see how we like it.  The #3 change is the most minimal
which still helps pronunciation.  Over time you could migrate to #4 and
#5 if desired.  The good news is that all the alternatives are clearly
recognizable as the same as "PostgreSQL".

(I see little support for doing a change post-8.3, e.g. 9.0.)

(This email is an attempt to refocus discussion on possible
alternatives.)

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
> we have:
>
>     1) No change
>     2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative

+1

>     3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
>     4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
>     5) Change the name to "Postgres"
>

- -1

Joshua D. Drake


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG1yF7ATb/zqfZUUQRAl14AJ9ejuA6M6mC8pNmAC7TBAwqgVLtIgCgqdKN
EIqWKGPM1d1RyH3irlCqGHg=
=mtds
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Let me ask a question, how many people who are against a name change now
>
>> The bottom line is that the pronunciation/marketing problem with the
>> name "PostgreSQL" is not going to change --- it is only going to get
>> worse.
>
> I am against the name change and I do not agree with your assessment. I
> believe it will get better. As the only real problem is the initial
> understanding and pronunciation. The rest is muscle memory.

I disagree it'll get better anytime in the next couple decades.

It's not like we already have 70% market share and just a couple
more people to "educate" about the awkward terminology.  Postgres
mindshare is still minuscule compared to that of Oracle or even
MySQL or SQL Server -- so as the product grows - most members
will be new members.

Outside the database community our mindshare is even smaller,
and I really wouldn't want to spend the time correcting my CEO's
pronunciation - nor our sales staff's pronunciation - or worse
customer's pronunciation which they learn from sales staff.

You say it's just "the initial understanding" - but on the
curve of "getting better" please realize that the current
state is about a few thousand people indoctrinated and a few
billion people not yet indoctrinated.

And in the long term, even if we had 100% market awareness,
every new CS student will still need to go through the
bizarre ritual of knowing that "ParseTHIS"
gets parsed "Parset HIS".
in this community.

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
> we have:
>
>     1) No change
>     2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
>     3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
>     4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
>     5) Change the name to "Postgres"

         6) Change the name to "Postgres" and emphasize "PostgreSQL" as
            an alternative

My vote -- #6. Announce it with release of 8.3. Allow a relatively slow,
natural transition from "PostgreSQL with Postgres as alt" to "Postgres
with PostgreSQL as alt" (e.g. over the course of a year or so as has
been mentioned).

Joe

2007-08-30_15:38:34-0400 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:

> Let me ask a question, how many people who are against a name change now
> think we should have done it before we released 8.0?

I would keep the name PostgreSQL then, now, and in the future.  I happen
to like it.  I probably pronounce it wrong, too.  So what?

As for the alleged pronunciation challenges, I think think they're
exaggerated, and not really that important.  At the very least, if
that's the only argument, I think we need more than anectodal opinion to
conclude that it's a real problem.  First we hear that it's well nigh
impossible to say the word in Italian and other foreign languages, but
we see an Italian and Frenchman saying that a name change will be a
PITA.  Hardly a ringing confirmation of the foreign language problem.
And what about other foreign languages?

Prince didn't have a name at all for a while, just a symbol.  He seemed
to make out alright.  ;)

I suppose you could also say changing his identity didn't hurt him any.
Well hurumph on me.

Call the database PostgreSQL, and call the organization Postgres?  The
organization as a whole outputs more than just the PostgreSQL database,
doesn't it?  (thank goodness you can't throw fruit on the internet
.. but I'm going to duck anyway)

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
> we have:
>
>     1) No change
>     2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
>     3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
>     4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
>     5) Change the name to "Postgres"
>
> I think we have already done #2 in FAQ item #1, so one approach would be
> to choose #3 and see how we like it.

I wouldn't say we've done #2.

A variation of #2 would be to emphasize it much *much* *MUCH* more.

Just as IBM uses the term "IBM" much more than the cumbersome
"International Business Machines Corporation" - the project could
move to using "Postgres" almost everywhere -- Home Page,
Documentation, Press Releases, Logos, etc.  The move could
be gradual, as I expect IBM's was.

The cumbersome long form could still exist; but would be only
used about as much as IBM uses their cumbersome long-form.

2007-08-30_15:52:58-0400 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
> we have:
>
>     1) No change
>     2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
>     3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
>     4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
>     5) Change the name to "Postgres"

6) Change the official pronunciation to whatever most people find most
   comfortable, and forgive the rest.

...not all mututally exclusive options.

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:58:51 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
>> we have:
>>
>>     1) No change
>>     2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
>
> +1

+1

>
>>     3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
>>     4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
>>     5) Change the name to "Postgres"
>>
>
> - -1
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
> - --
>
>       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
> PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
>             UNIQUE NOT NULL
> Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFG1yF7ATb/zqfZUUQRAl14AJ9ejuA6M6mC8pNmAC7TBAwqgVLtIgCgqdKN
> EIqWKGPM1d1RyH3irlCqGHg=
> =mtds
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq



- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG1ysP4QvfyHIvDvMRApLbAKCU7SOZnMRi7Kf8jzzJfOpN8kmAlQCg02tr
4U4eO2MUyrV9RAOOZD2nZXw=
=poSZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:44:00 -0700 "Joshua D. Drake"
<jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Let me ask a question, how many people who are against a name change now
>
>> The bottom line is that the pronunciation/marketing problem with the
>> name "PostgreSQL" is not going to change --- it is only going to get
>> worse.
>
> I am against the name change and I do not agree with your assessment. I
> believe it will get better. As the only real problem is the initial
> understanding and pronunciation. The rest is muscle memory.

Agreed ... IMHO, all the arguments about 'long vs short term'are *very* myopic
and don't address any of the marketing efforts that ppl have / are *paying* for
with real cash ...

The only ppl that will benefit from this are those that *are* using Postgres in
their marketing right now, since it won't cost them a cent ... but, of course,
those are also the ones that *have the money* to throw away ...

- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG1ypt4QvfyHIvDvMRAk6IAJ9O2kzKUWXp5/0OHeuYdL1P7KjBxACdH2tV
agiz6PDpV84njzwdY8cWJZw=
=zh+B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joe Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
>> we have:
>>     1) No change
>>     2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
>>     3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
>>     4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
>>     5) Change the name to "Postgres"
>
>         6) Change the name to "Postgres" and emphasize "PostgreSQL" as
>            an alternative
>
> My vote -- #6. Announce it with release of 8.3. Allow a relatively slow,
> natural transition from "PostgreSQL with Postgres as alt" to "Postgres with
> PostgreSQL as alt" (e.g. over the course of a year or so as has been
> mentioned).

+1 to #6 and the rest of Joe's opinion.

--
Alvaro Herrera                  http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/5ZYLFMCVHXC
"If you have nothing to say, maybe you need just the right tool to help you
not say it."                   (New York Times, about Microsoft PowerPoint)

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Joe Conway wrote:

>        6) Change the name to "Postgres" and emphasize "PostgreSQL" as
>           an alternative
> My vote -- #6. Announce it with release of 8.3. Allow a relatively slow,
> natural transition from "PostgreSQL with Postgres as alt" to "Postgres with
> PostgreSQL as alt" (e.g. over the course of a year or so as has been
> mentioned).

I note that this plan seems to be the only one that takes into
consideration the concerns people have raised about already printed promo
materials and the like.  Put people on notice:  if you're having stuff
printed from now on, use Postgres, because eventually PostgreSQL will
clearly be the secondary name; but for now they're both fine.  Expect to
stay in that state for at least a year.  You could avoid touching anything
internally in 8.3 to support this change, which side-steps all the
packaging concerns until 8.4, but just announce the plan at that point.
That would be the only way to handle this I'd add a +1 to.

In addition to the reasons for simplifying the name everyone else has
pointed out, which I completely agree with, I'd like to add that having
the name so similar to MySQL is also a source of confusion for some people
I've dealt with.  Just last week, I had someone tell me they had been
ignoring PostgreSQL because they assumed from the name it was some sort of
Ingres/MySQL bastard child.  It was easy to explain that Postgres started
as a second-generation design from the same person who developed Ingres
and then expanded as an open-source project; the fact that I had to then
explain where the SQL part came from needlessly complicated the
discussion.

I also note that it wasn't too long ago some were complaining about too
much traffic on the advocacy list making it unsuitable for some people who
might otherwise contribute usefully in this area; this week, I'm about
ready to unsubscribe myself.  Can someone create pgsql-arguments and force
the kinds of controversial discussions that play out on this list to move
to there or something?

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

>     1) No change
>     2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative

+1

>     3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
>     4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
>     5) Change the name to "Postgres"

-1

2007-08-30_19:25:56-0400 Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>:

> Can someone create pgsql-arguments and force the kinds of
> controversial discussions that play out on this list to move to there
> or something?

What would a non-controversial discussions be like?  2 + 2 = 4?
Changing the name is a big deal, a lot of people have an opinion about
it, and this is a venue to express them.  Nobody is being vicious or
anything.

Discussions like these drag out because there is no rational conclusion.
Some people like Postgres, some like PostgreSQL.  It's like trying to
decide the best color.  Being an apostate architect, I've been in a lot
of those discussions also, and they're much the same.  They go on and on
and on, there's rarely an argument that will appeal to everyone's sense
of reason, nevertheless there are a lot of strong opinions, which leads
to lots of chest thumping, etc.  But just because these kinds of
political discussions are frustrating and difficult doesn't mean they
don't need to happen.

Ultimately I think the folks with the most clout around here (read
'core'), certainly not me, just need to step in and resolve this one way
or the other.  They probably don't all agree either, but they could have
an internal vote or something, and the boundary of 'who gets to vote'
would make as much sense as any other option I can think of.

Would anybody be against a pronouncement from core as a way of ending
this endless thread?

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

On 8/30/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
> we have:
>
>         1) No change
>         2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative

+1

>         3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
>         4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
>         5) Change the name to "Postgres"
>
> I have ordered the items from least to most invasive. Given the
> discussion, I think no option is going to get unanimous approval, so no
> matter what we choose some people are going to be disappointed.
>
> I think we have already done #2 in FAQ item #1, so one approach would be
p
[...]

The way I feel Postgres should be perfectly legal short form of
PostgreSQL Relational Database Managament System.  I.e. use
two forms: "PostgreSQL RDBMS" and "Postgres" interchangably.

Personally I like PostgreSQL name and I would hate to "drop it".
It is complex, yes, but in a nice technically advanced and warm
inside sort of way.  Besides there are at least three other RDBMS
which embed "SQL" in their name.  MySQL, SQL Server and SQLite.

(This is beside the point, but I guess that "SQL" in the name may
even attract people.  Would that be if Firebird was called FireSQL,
it would attract more traction?  Wild idea, but it may be that trailing
"SQL" had actually help gain some popularity?)

Then again I am all for popularising Postgres as the "short form"
of PostgreSQL RDBMS.  I have heard too many people asking
about "Postgre", and I think the more Postgres name is visible,
the more people will make out the correct connection
"PostgreSQL is Postgres".

If we keep the "PostgreSQL RDBMS" as the long form -- package
names, brochures etc. will remain valid, since they refer to long
form.  But by encouraging short form "Postgres" should promote
the name Postgres where it is most apropriate -- speeches,
presentations, documentation, discussions, etc.

   Regards,
     Dawid

> In summary, looking at possible conclusions to this discussion, I think
> we have:
>
>     1) No change

+1. For non-English speakers, choosing "PostgreSQL" or "Postgres" does
make no difference from the marketing point of view since they are
foreign language for non-English speakers anyway. In another word,
changing to "Postgres" will give virtually no value to non-English
speakers, for example Japanese. Instead it will give us huge cost to
advertise the new name "Postgres" again. We have spent tons of effort
to make PostgreSQL popular in Japan since 1996, and have made the
current status of PostgreSQL in Japan (you know that PostgreSQL,
Oracle, MySQL have almost even share on Linux platforms in
Japan). Let's not to waste the work.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan

>     2) Emphasize "Postgres" more as an alternative
>     3) Change the name to "PostgresQL"
>     4) Change the name to "Postgres QL"
>     5) Change the name to "Postgres"
>
> I have ordered the items from least to most invasive. Given the
> discussion, I think no option is going to get unanimous approval, so no
> matter what we choose some people are going to be disappointed.
>
> I think we have already done #2 in FAQ item #1, so one approach would be
> to choose #3 and see how we like it.  The #3 change is the most minimal
> which still helps pronunciation.  Over time you could migrate to #4 and
> #5 if desired.  The good news is that all the alternatives are clearly
> recognizable as the same as "PostgreSQL".
>
> (I see little support for doing a change post-8.3, e.g. 9.0.)
>
> (This email is an attempt to refocus discussion on possible
> alternatives.)
>
> --
>   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>          http://momjian.us
>   EnterpriseDB                               http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
>   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

On Aug 30, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Again, long term vs. short term. If we don't change it we will be
> having
> awkward pronunciations forever, and taking the marketing hit for that
> forever.  There is going to be short term pain, but long term gain.

This isn't even about only awkward pronunciation... PostgreSQL is,
flat-out, a *bad* name. It's akin to Ford calling a car
"MustangELECTRICSTART" because the car has an electric starter.
Perhaps having SQL support was novel at some point in Postgres
history, but it's certainly not today.

Yes, there's printed material that will have to be re-done. Big
whoop. If SPI and the corporate entities don't want to handle that
cost, I'll put up $500 of my own. If names didn't get changed because
of marketing material, we'd still be calling microwave ovens "radar
range"s.

As someone else mentioned, this issue is going to get worse as time
goes on. And I'll bet that eventually the marketplace will actually
decide on a name for us, simply because the name we have now is, at
best, confusing.

Someone mentioned companies that are already using Postgres instead
of PostgreSQL. I think it says something that the last 3 companies
that have started up with PostgreSQL (Greenplum, Pervasive,
EnterpriseDB) have shunned the name. Heck, Greenplum and EnterpriseDB
have shunned the name multiple times (names that don't contain
PostgreSQL but could: Greenplum, MPP, Bizgres, EnterpriseDB,
EnterpriseDB Advanced Server, EnterpriseDB Postgres). Oh, I forgot
ExtenDB, too.

Did Greatbridge even use the term PostgreSQL?

We can poke fun at marketing people all we want, but like it or not
they're *trained* in how to make people want to use something. I know
Pervasive and EnterpriseDB both have marketing people on staff, and
I'm guessing Greenplum does as well. They recognize that Postgres is
a better name than PostgreSQL. If we care about advocating the use of
this database, perhaps we should heed that wisdom and figure out the
best way to change the name and then move on.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

On Friday 31 August 2007 04:53, Decibel! wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Again, long term vs. short term. If we don't change it we will be
> > having
> > awkward pronunciations forever, and taking the marketing hit for that
> > forever.  There is going to be short term pain, but long term gain.
>
> This isn't even about only awkward pronunciation... PostgreSQL is,
> flat-out, a *bad* name. It's akin to Ford calling a car
> "MustangELECTRICSTART" because the car has an electric starter.
> Perhaps having SQL support was novel at some point in Postgres
> history, but it's certainly not today.
>

That doesnt make it a bad name. There are several very popular databases that
have SQL in thier name.

> Someone mentioned companies that are already using Postgres instead
> of PostgreSQL. I think it says something that the last 3 companies
> that have started up with PostgreSQL (Greenplum, Pervasive,
> EnterpriseDB) have shunned the name. Heck, Greenplum and EnterpriseDB
> have shunned the name multiple times (names that don't contain
> PostgreSQL but could: Greenplum, MPP, Bizgres, EnterpriseDB,
> EnterpriseDB Advanced Server, EnterpriseDB Postgres). Oh, I forgot
> ExtenDB, too.
>

It says that they were concerned about the trademark issues around postgresql,
and were concerned about not being able to differentiate thier products from
the community postgresql product.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Decibel! wrote:
> PostgreSQL is,
> flat-out, a *bad* name. It's akin to Ford calling a car
> "MustangELECTRICSTART"

"MustanGELECTRIcstart"  would be a more fair comparison.




> Someone mentioned companies that are already using Postgres instead of
> PostgreSQL. I think it says something that the last 3 companies that
> have started up with PostgreSQL (Greenplum, Pervasive, EnterpriseDB)
> have shunned the name. Heck, Greenplum and EnterpriseDB have shunned the
> name multiple times (names that don't contain PostgreSQL but could:
> Greenplum, MPP, Bizgres, EnterpriseDB, EnterpriseDB Advanced Server,
> EnterpriseDB Postgres). Oh, I forgot ExtenDB, too.

And "Red Hat Database"

Robert Treat wrote:
> That doesnt make it a bad name. There are several very popular databases that
> have SQL in thier name.

But none that insist on pronunciations like "Mice Q. L." for "MySQL"
or "Microsofts Q. L. server" for "Microsoft SQL Server"

>> (Greenplum, MPP, Bizgres...).
>
> It says that they were concerned about the trademark issues around postgresql,
> and were concerned about not being able to differentiate thier products from
> the community postgresql product.

"BizgreSQL" surely wouldn't have had any trademark issues.
But I bet new users would have called it "Bizgre".

Ron Mayer wrote:
> Decibel! wrote:

>
>> Someone mentioned companies that are already using Postgres instead of
>> PostgreSQL. I think it says something that the last 3 companies that
>> have started up with PostgreSQL

Yes it says they want their own brand and has zero relevance to this
discussion.

 (Greenplum, Pervasive, EnterpriseDB)
>> have shunned the name. Heck, Greenplum and EnterpriseDB have shunned the
>> name multiple times (names that don't contain PostgreSQL but could:
>> Greenplum, MPP, Bizgres, EnterpriseDB, EnterpriseDB Advanced Server,
>> EnterpriseDB Postgres). Oh, I forgot ExtenDB, too.

See above.

Joshua D. Drake


>
> And "Red Hat Database"
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
>        choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
>        match
>

For what it's worth, the box on the shelf behind me says "Great Bridge
PostgreSQL"

On 8/31/07, Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Again, long term vs. short term. If we don't change it we will be
> > having
> > awkward pronunciations forever, and taking the marketing hit for that
> > forever.  There is going to be short term pain, but long term gain.
>
> This isn't even about only awkward pronunciation... PostgreSQL is,
> flat-out, a *bad* name. It's akin to Ford calling a car
> "MustangELECTRICSTART" because the car has an electric starter.
> Perhaps having SQL support was novel at some point in Postgres
> history, but it's certainly not today.
>
> Yes, there's printed material that will have to be re-done. Big
> whoop. If SPI and the corporate entities don't want to handle that
> cost, I'll put up $500 of my own. If names didn't get changed because
> of marketing material, we'd still be calling microwave ovens "radar
> range"s.
>
> As someone else mentioned, this issue is going to get worse as time
> goes on. And I'll bet that eventually the marketplace will actually
> decide on a name for us, simply because the name we have now is, at
> best, confusing.
>
> Someone mentioned companies that are already using Postgres instead
> of PostgreSQL. I think it says something that the last 3 companies
> that have started up with PostgreSQL (Greenplum, Pervasive,
> EnterpriseDB) have shunned the name. Heck, Greenplum and EnterpriseDB
> have shunned the name multiple times (names that don't contain
> PostgreSQL but could: Greenplum, MPP, Bizgres, EnterpriseDB,
> EnterpriseDB Advanced Server, EnterpriseDB Postgres). Oh, I forgot
> ExtenDB, too.
>
> Did Greatbridge even use the term PostgreSQL?
>
> We can poke fun at marketing people all we want, but like it or not
> they're *trained* in how to make people want to use something. I know
> Pervasive and EnterpriseDB both have marketing people on staff, and
> I'm guessing Greenplum does as well. They recognize that Postgres is
> a better name than PostgreSQL. If we care about advocating the use of
> this database, perhaps we should heed that wisdom and figure out the
> best way to change the name and then move on.
> --
> Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
> EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

On 8/31/2007 4:53 AM, Decibel! wrote:
> Yes, there's printed material that will have to be re-done. Big
> whoop. If SPI and the corporate entities don't want to handle that
> cost, I'll put up $500 of my own. If names didn't get changed because
> of marketing material, we'd still be calling microwave ovens "radar
> range"s.

Nobody has to "redo" anything at all if they don't want to. Printed
material in the software industry tends to age and become shelfware
nobody is ever looking at again. As long as all future material is using
Postgres alone, the change will go along just fine.

Granted, the time was much shorter, but where do you find any references
to Postgres95 these days?


Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 8/31/2007 4:53 AM, Decibel! wrote:
>> Yes, there's printed material that will have to be re-done. Big
>> whoop. If SPI and the corporate entities don't want to handle that
>> cost, I'll put up $500 of my own. If names didn't get changed because
>> of marketing material, we'd still be calling microwave ovens "radar
>> range"s.
>
> Nobody has to "redo" anything at all if they don't want to. Printed
> material in the software industry tends to age and become shelfware
> nobody is ever looking at again. As long as all future material is using
> Postgres alone, the change will go along just fine.

Ignoring the requirements of the communities in charge of the majority
of advocacy of the larger whole is bad idea.

When we have our *largest* community asking us not to do this, we need
to listen to that community.

Further as the person that actually approves many of the community
expenditures I can tell you that I am not at all pleased about the idea
that we are going to waste money, repaying from much of that printed
material. Not to mention time and energy wasted redoing our live cd, our
 shirt designs, our sign designs etc...

I still have yet to hear a real argument against PostgreSQL except that
it is easier to say, which imo is a pretty bogus argument considering
the Japanese and European communities are telling us it isn't a big deal.

PostgreSQL has impact
Postgres is a weak stream when you hit 50.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


>
> Granted, the time was much shorter, but where do you find any references
> to Postgres95 these days?
>
>
> Jan
>


- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG2JRpATb/zqfZUUQRAqY4AJ90og9DH4oEMVfNNdhUJz56DU3BbwCfTt4F
gORzcBA8/ktP9vVKLXuvHic=
=uBdm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 8/31/2007 6:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On 8/31/2007 4:53 AM, Decibel! wrote:
>>> Yes, there's printed material that will have to be re-done. Big
>>> whoop. If SPI and the corporate entities don't want to handle that
>>> cost, I'll put up $500 of my own. If names didn't get changed because
>>> of marketing material, we'd still be calling microwave ovens "radar
>>> range"s.
>>
>> Nobody has to "redo" anything at all if they don't want to. Printed
>> material in the software industry tends to age and become shelfware
>> nobody is ever looking at again. As long as all future material is using
>> Postgres alone, the change will go along just fine.
>
> Ignoring the requirements of the communities in charge of the majority
> of advocacy of the larger whole is bad idea.

You entirely seem to ignore that quite some number of community members
(me included) already abandoned this QL name monster and are referring
to our product by its original, well known name Postgres.

Also keep in mind that this is not like we are "changing" our name in an
instant to something unheard of until now. It is more like an attempt to
correct the stupid decision from the past, that adding Qewl to Postgres
was in the first place. I mean to the name, not to the parser.


Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 8/31/2007 6:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>> Ignoring the requirements of the communities in charge of the majority
>> of advocacy of the larger whole is bad idea.
>
> You entirely seem to ignore that quite some number of community members
> (me included) already abandoned this QL name monster and are referring
> to our product by its original, well known name Postgres.

No I am not ignoring it at all. I consider Postgres a valid nickname for
the project PostgreSQL. I see zero reason to go through the hassle of
changing everything for the sake of two bytes. If you want to call it
Postgres call it Postgres, add an entry to the FAQ that it is a valid
shortening of the name and call it good.

Joshua D. Drake



- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG2JmMATb/zqfZUUQRAiAtAKCF3cTw9UT/faeJAhDVqim2BWVWHwCfafA1
zH/LgTT7pKd3JNhph4oidSc=
=gLSY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Well, as I've said earlier, I'm a big +1 for changing the name to Postgres.

With due respect to all of those on both sides of the issue, IMHO Postgres
is a better name. It's simple. It's pronounceable. It's doesn't brag about
something that was new *10* years ago. It can be implemented easily, with
FAQs to resolve confusion. It doesn't have to be everywhere all at once (see
choice #6 from earlier in the thread). And by my reckoning, most people seem
to want it.

For what it's worth, we put a naming poll on the postgres.enterprisedb.com
site. Out of 95 votes, 54% vote for a name change, 26% say no, and 18% don't
care. I invite this mailing list to vote its opinions, if you haven't
already (please don't vote multiple times). Clearly, it's just one
measurement, but in US politics, these kinds of numbers are called a
landslide.

Bruce and others have demonstrated crisply that the work involved is not so
great. I'm just one voice, but I think we should make the change and move
on.

Andy

On 8/31/07 6:43 PM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On 8/31/2007 6:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>> Ignoring the requirements of the communities in charge of the majority
>>> of advocacy of the larger whole is bad idea.
>>
>> You entirely seem to ignore that quite some number of community members
>> (me included) already abandoned this QL name monster and are referring
>> to our product by its original, well known name Postgres.
>
> No I am not ignoring it at all. I consider Postgres a valid nickname for
> the project PostgreSQL. I see zero reason to go through the hassle of
> changing everything for the sake of two bytes. If you want to call it
> Postgres call it Postgres, add an entry to the FAQ that it is a valid
> shortening of the name and call it good.
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
> - --
>
>       === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
> PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
> UNIQUE NOT NULL
> Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFG2JmMATb/zqfZUUQRAiAtAKCF3cTw9UT/faeJAhDVqim2BWVWHwCfafA1
> zH/LgTT7pKd3JNhph4oidSc=
> =gLSY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

2007-09-01_07:18:48-0400 Andy Astor <andy.astor@enterprisedb.com>:

> For what it's worth, we put a naming poll on the
> postgres.enterprisedb.com site. Out of 95 votes, 54% vote for a name
> change, 26% say no, and 18% don't care. I invite this mailing list to
> vote its opinions, if you haven't already (please don't vote multiple
> times). Clearly, it's just one measurement, but in US politics, these
> kinds of numbers are called a landslide.

It's called unscientific polling.

> Bruce and others have demonstrated crisply that the work involved is
> not so great.

I don't see that.

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andy Astor wrote:
> Well, as I've said earlier, I'm a big +1 for changing the name to Postgres.

> For what it's worth, we put a naming poll on the postgres.enterprisedb.com
> site. Out of 95 votes, 54% vote for a name change, 26% say no, and 18% don't
> care. I invite this mailing list to vote its opinions, if you haven't
> already (please don't vote multiple times). Clearly, it's just one
> measurement, but in US politics, these kinds of numbers are called a
> landslide.

And typically not representative of the whole as I guarantee you most of
us wouldn't have bothered to go to that poll. Myself included.

>
> Bruce and others have demonstrated crisply that the work involved is not so
> great. I'm just one voice, but I think we should make the change and move
> on.
>
> Andy

Andy, the problem with your or my argument "for" changing the name is we
have something directly to gain without consequence. CMD if it chooses
could become Postgres, Inc, we already have the domain and the assumed
business name in place.

EDB gets to strengthen its brand significantly if the community changes
its name.

What needs to happen here is the community needs to look around as a
whole and so far Bruce and Jan have provided zero reason beyond, "We
really shouldn't have named it PostgreSQL because it was hard to
pronounce". Which although carries some weight it is a little pebble
compared to the effort it will take otherwise.

I reassert that there is zero reason for the community to "need" to
change its name. We simply officially provide that the name "Postgres"
is an official abbreviation.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

- --

      === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564   24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997  http://www.commandprompt.com/
            UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFG2XbjATb/zqfZUUQRAghTAJ4jNszOkc/0JV9uT0+Lf+12G2BYIQCdE6nF
BU6THkQyHE+Hvg27+6DUKWw=
=VJ9M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 9/1/2007 10:27 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Andy Astor wrote:
>> Well, as I've said earlier, I'm a big +1 for changing the name to Postgres.
>
>> For what it's worth, we put a naming poll on the postgres.enterprisedb.com
>> site. Out of 95 votes, 54% vote for a name change, 26% say no, and 18% don't
>> care. I invite this mailing list to vote its opinions, if you haven't
>> already (please don't vote multiple times). Clearly, it's just one
>> measurement, but in US politics, these kinds of numbers are called a
>> landslide.
>
> And typically not representative of the whole as I guarantee you most of
> us wouldn't have bothered to go to that poll. Myself included.
>
>>
>> Bruce and others have demonstrated crisply that the work involved is not so
>> great. I'm just one voice, but I think we should make the change and move
>> on.
>>
>> Andy
>
> Andy, the problem with your or my argument "for" changing the name is we
> have something directly to gain without consequence. CMD if it chooses
> could become Postgres, Inc, we already have the domain and the assumed
> business name in place.
>
> EDB gets to strengthen its brand significantly if the community changes
> its name.
>
> What needs to happen here is the community needs to look around as a
> whole and so far Bruce and Jan have provided zero reason beyond, "We
> really shouldn't have named it PostgreSQL because it was hard to
> pronounce". Which although carries some weight it is a little pebble
> compared to the effort it will take otherwise.

Do you have any clue how many countless hours of useless discussion this
name has cost us already? Unproductive hours that community members
could otherwise have spent doing something useful. And I guarantee you,
this nonsense will continue as long as the community as a whole is
clinging to the situation as it is, driven by the fear factor you and
others are using to encourage resisting change.

Sum that up and try to put a price tag on it. I am sure if you do this
seriously you will grossly exceed any costs the actual change could
possibly cause.

> I reassert that there is zero reason for the community to "need" to
> change its name. We simply officially provide that the name "Postgres"
> is an official abbreviation.

Do it the other way around please. The name Postgres is the original
project name. PostgreSQL was a buzzword enhanced marketing gag that we
will keep tolerating.


Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

On 9/1/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do you have any clue how many countless hours of useless discussion this
> name has cost us already? Unproductive hours that community members
> could otherwise have spent doing something useful. And I guarantee you,
> this nonsense will continue as long as the community as a whole is
> clinging to the situation as it is, driven by the fear factor you and
> others are using to encourage resisting change.

Agreed.

> Sum that up and try to put a price tag on it. I am sure if you do this
> seriously you will grossly exceed any costs the actual change could
> possibly cause.

Agreed.

> Do it the other way around please. The name Postgres is the original
> project name. PostgreSQL was a buzzword enhanced marketing gag that we
> will keep tolerating.

Agreed.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation            | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor            | jharris@enterprisedb.com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830            | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

On Saturday 01 September 2007 13:57, John Wang wrote:
> On 8/31/07, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote:
> > Robert Treat wrote:
> > > That doesnt make it a bad name. There are several very popular
> > > databases
> >
> > that
> >
> > > have SQL in thier name.
> >
> > But none that insist on pronunciations like "Mice Q. L." for "MySQL"
> > or "Microsofts Q. L. server" for "Microsoft SQL Server"
>
> Good point.

*shrug* it's orthogonal to the original posters assertation though.

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



- --On Friday, August 31, 2007 18:07:54 -0400 Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
wrote:


> Granted, the time was much shorter, but where do you find any references to
> Postgres95 these days?

Nobody market'd Postgres95, so why would you find it anywhere?

- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG2Jb84QvfyHIvDvMRAtNbAKDEaJs/on4IpayO7xXi0u7TNZl6ZACg3KO3
E0gv+iUvvVpKJa/L9OxWhhU=
=dx6T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On 8/31/2007 6:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>> Ignoring the requirements of the communities in charge of the majority
>>> of advocacy of the larger whole is bad idea.
>> You entirely seem to ignore that quite some number of community members
>> (me included) already abandoned this QL name monster and are referring
>> to our product by its original, well known name Postgres.
>
> No I am not ignoring it at all. I consider Postgres a valid nickname for
> the project PostgreSQL. I see zero reason to go through the hassle of
> changing everything for the sake of two bytes. If you want to call it
> Postgres call it Postgres, add an entry to the FAQ that it is a valid
> shortening of the name and call it good.

I would note that I too, normally call it Postgres (or sometimes PGSQL).

Just like I shorten Win32 to crap, Mac OSX to candy and United States of
America to USA.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

On Sep 2, 2007, at 12:16 AM, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Saturday 01 September 2007 13:57, John Wang wrote:
>> On 8/31/07, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote:
>>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>>> That doesnt make it a bad name. There are several very popular
>>>> databases
>>>
>>> that
>>>
>>>> have SQL in thier name.
>>>
>>> But none that insist on pronunciations like "Mice Q. L." for "MySQL"
>>> or "Microsofts Q. L. server" for "Microsoft SQL Server"
>>
>> Good point.
>
> *shrug* it's orthogonal to the original posters assertation though.

As the OP, I'll disagree. :)

For all 3, the SQL portion is used to indicate that the product/
project is a database, while the rest of the name provides context on
who it's from or what it's about:

SQLite: lightweight database
MS SQL Server: Database server from MS
MySQL: this is "My" database engine, it does what I want
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)

> MySQL: this is "My" database engine, it does what I want

As in "my first sony"?

MySQL never does what I want, it has a mind of it's own :)

Jim Nasby wrote:
> MySQL: this is "My" database engine, it does what I want

iirc, it was actually named after Monty's daughter.

/D

Hi,

On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 11:15 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > MySQL: this is "My" database engine, it does what I want
>
> iirc, it was actually named after Monty's daughter.

Yeah.

Let's change our name to GuneDenizSQL!
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 11:15:17AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Jim Nasby wrote:
> > MySQL: this is "My" database engine, it does what I want
>
> iirc, it was actually named after Monty's daughter.

It was, and you've never seen such a scowl.

Cheers,
David (who might scowl too if his name was on a product like that)
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778        AIM: dfetter666
                              Skype: davidfetter

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> See the archives. It isn't happening.

Just spent time searching through the old archives. One thing I
do notice is that the idea seems to get more support each year;
perhaps as more new "Postgre" users seem to come around.


Google Trends also suggests that "postgresql" usage is
declining (relative to all other searches on google, if
I understand their tool) while "postgres" and "postgre"
usage have been almost flat in 2006-2007.
http://www.google.com/trends?q=postgresql%2Cpostgres%2Cpostgre&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0
Sure, people question the accuracy of Google's data; but
the trends seem consistent.

If both these trends continue, it seems more of a matter
of when it happens then if; and it seems earlier is less
work than later.

On Wednesday 05 September 2007 10:18, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Google Trends also suggests that "postgresql" usage is
> declining (relative to all other searches on google, if
> I understand their tool) while "postgres" and "postgre"
> usage have been almost flat in 2006-2007.
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=postgresql%2Cpostgres%2Cpostgre&ctab=0&geo=a
>ll&date=all&sort=0 Sure, people question the accuracy of Google's data; but
> the trends seem consistent.
>

Someone upthread mentioned Brazilians naturally pronounce it as Postgre, it
seems the google trend data reflects this:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=postgresql,postgres,postgre&date=all&geo=bra&ctab=0&ctab=0&sa=N

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

It has to do with the spelling 'postgre' sounds like 'postgres' in a latin language


On Wednesday 5 September 2007 10:44, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 September 2007 10:18, Ron Mayer wrote:
> > Google Trends also suggests that "postgresql" usage is
> > declining (relative to all other searches on google, if
> > I understand their tool) while "postgres" and "postgre"
> > usage have been almost flat in 2006-2007.
> > http://www.google.com/trends?q=postgresql%2Cpostgres%2Cpostgre&ctab=0&geo=a
> >ll&date=all&sort=0 Sure, people question the accuracy of Google's data; but
> > the trends seem consistent.
> >
>
> Someone upthread mentioned Brazilians naturally pronounce it as Postgre, it
> seems the google trend data reflects this:
>
> http://www.google.com/trends?q=postgresql,postgres,postgre&date=all&geo=bra&ctab=0&ctab=0&sa=N
>