Thread: Using Postgres as an alias

In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
"PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same could be done
with the FAQ.

Objections?

--
  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 26 September 2007 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same could be done
> with the FAQ.

+1

Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
> I really like it (I think I have actually always expressed my favours
> for it).
>
> Actually, I believe that in the next promotional material that the
> Italian community will produce, we will clearly state something like:
> "PostgreSQL, or simply Postgres, is ..." . And we could use this
> 'message' whenever suitable in conferences, workshops, webpages, etc.

Sounds good - I think I'll follow Bruce's lead in the pgAdmin docs.

In the app itself, should we change all instances to Postgres do you think?

Regards Dave

I really like it (I think I have actually always expressed my favours for it).

Actually, I believe that in the next promotional material that the Italian community will produce, we will clearly state something like: "PostgreSQL, or simply Postgres, is ..." . And we could use this 'message' whenever suitable in conferences, workshops, webpages, etc.

Ciao,
Gabriele

2007/9/26, Robert Bernier <robert.bernier5@sympatico.ca>:

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 06:11, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same could be done
> with the FAQ.

+1


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

Hi,

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 06:11 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same
> could be done with the FAQ.
>
> Objections?

I still cannot understand why we spend our energy on such a thing.

I strongly object. I don't want to see Postgres in any of our
documentation.

As the lead RPM packager, I will *never* ever rename PostgreSQL to
Postgres in any of my packages, documentation, etc. unless we change our
official name someday (which I hope it won't happen any time)

From my point of view, I cannot spend time to rename the packages from
postgresql to postgres (I cannot think about the upgrade problems...)

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

Hi Dave,

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 12:53 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> In the app itself, should we change all instances to Postgres do you
> think?

So you want to use the alias instead of real name? Interesting.
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 12:53 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> In the app itself, should we change all instances to Postgres do you
>> think?
>
> So you want to use the alias instead of real name? Interesting.

Yes, because it's easier to write and pronounce. I don't see it as being
any difference from you calling me Dave, or having aliased 'rm -rf' to
'rm' :-) The whole point of having the alias is to use it.

/D

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 08:23, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> From my point of view, I cannot spend time to rename the packages from
> postgresql to postgres (I cannot think about the upgrade problems...)

Sure why not, sounds fair to me.

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same could be done
> with the FAQ.
>
> Objections?
>

It is a complete and utter waste of time. Don't you have enough to focus
on than worrying about this?

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

iD8DBQFG+n/HATb/zqfZUUQRAr0EAJ9wn+ARkkR2akLMvXY4A024XTyFkQCbBKKf
F0lvuh7FJVzMHeHDWeeeZzA=
=hXQ7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Devrim,

> I still cannot understand why we spend our energy on such a thing.

I completely agree with you.

However if some people have difficulties to pronounce 'PostgreSQL',
I will accept an alias in documents, 'PostgreSQL also known as Postgres'.

It is acceptable for me.

2007/9/26, Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@commandprompt.com>:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 06:11 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same
> > could be done with the FAQ.
> >
> > Objections?
>
> I still cannot understand why we spend our energy on such a thing.
>
> I strongly object. I don't want to see Postgres in any of our
> documentation.
>
> As the lead RPM packager, I will *never* ever rename PostgreSQL to
> Postgres in any of my packages, documentation, etc. unless we change our
> official name someday (which I hope it won't happen any time)
>
> From my point of view, I cannot spend time to rename the packages from
> postgresql to postgres (I cannot think about the upgrade problems...)
>
> Regards,
> --
> Devrim GÜNDÜZ
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
> Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
> Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
>
>
>
>


--
NAGAYASU Satoshi <snaga@snaga.org>

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:11:52AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same
> could be done with the FAQ.
>
> Objections?

+1 :)

Cheers,
D
--
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

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 09:33:38AM -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:11:52AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same
> > could be done with the FAQ.
> >
> > Objections?
>
> +1 :)

Oops.  That's +1 for making the change :)

Cheers,
D
--
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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.

I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
our differences about product naming.  Technical documentation is the
last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent.  If you
want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.

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

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 12:43, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>
> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
> our differences about product naming.  Technical documentation is the
> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent.  If you
> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.

+1

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

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


Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same could be done
> with the FAQ.
>
> Objections?
>

Joshua Drake responded:
> It is a complete and utter waste of time. Don't you have enough to
> focus on than worrying about this?

While I somewhat agree with Peter's later point, why this response?
Bruce's time is his to do with as he sees fit. This is a volunteer project.
Obviously this issue is important to Bruce.


- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200709261325
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFG+pZbvJuQZxSWSsgRA0OxAJ9QgJNasE62OErPwZj9uqmEvU6pcQCfQyKb
c38CR4DLUOEkDx6i2zbgoyQ=
=bwiT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
>> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same could be done
>> with the FAQ.
>
>> Objections?
>
>
> Joshua Drake responded:
>> It is a complete and utter waste of time. Don't you have enough to
>> focus on than worrying about this?
>
> While I somewhat agree with Peter's later point, why this response?
> Bruce's time is his to do with as he sees fit. This is a volunteer project.
> Obviously this issue is important to Bruce.

Granted my response was harsh, likely due to the incessant and
ridiculous thread of changing the name in the first place.

Bruce was just simply asking what people thought. I responded fiercely,
in that I think it is a complete and utter waste of time.

However, it is his time.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Draek


>
>

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



- --

      === 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

iD8DBQFG+piMATb/zqfZUUQRAoySAJ9Zyd78UcRez+v55QLU/MKsnIyO3ACfXN2B
bBEkX3NdJbUIV41crmfpKoE=
=XgAa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi,

Personally I find this entire effort quite irrelevant in the grand
scheme of things. So I would just say, who ever feels passionate about
making the switch should go ahead. But if they do they should follow
through with this including all the work (and legal juggling with
domains) necessary. If there is anything they cannot do themselves, they
better do something really nice to the person who has to do it in their
place (like renaming RPM's). Oh and they better do it right :)

I am starting to forget if this list had any other topics besides name
changing ;)

regards,
Lukas

> ------- Original Message -------
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
> To: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>
> Sent: 26/09/07, 18:36:12
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
>
> Granted my response was harsh, likely due to the incessant and
> ridiculous thread of changing the name in the first place.
>

James,

Ridiculous in you opinion, but clearly not everyone's. I for one think it's ridiculous that we don't make more of an
effortto ensure people get our project name right whrther by renaming, or making the friendly name more prominent. 

Regards, Dav[e|id]

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>
> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
> our differences about product naming.  Technical documentation is the
> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent.  If you
> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.

If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you have
a better idea?

--
  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:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
>>> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
>> our differences about product naming.  Technical documentation is the
>> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent.  If you
>> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
>
> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you have
> a better idea?

I believe the FAQ is sufficient.

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

iD8DBQFG+qS/ATb/zqfZUUQRAvbvAJ4v8eI1lnny6qIssWHG0jg+0aHYmwCgkTiH
KI9gtgqlnhJysK72nSzEkIk=
=+CPc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot.

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 <pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>
Sent: Wed Sep 26 14:23:50 2007
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>
> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
> our differences about product naming.  Technical documentation is the
> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent.  If you
> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.

If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you have
a better idea?

--
  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 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

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

Derek Rodner wrote:
> In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot.

This is assuming the name of the project has changed. It hasn't. The
name of this project is PostgreSQL.

This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...

Bruce, with respect. Let's start with one thing at a time. We have
changed the FAQ.

The community "just" accepted the FAQ change, and now you want to start
this?

Let it lay.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> 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 <pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org>
> To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
> Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org <pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Wed Sep 26 14:23:50 2007
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
>
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
>>> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
>> our differences about product naming.  Technical documentation is the
>> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent.  If you
>> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
>
> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you have
> a better idea?
>


- --

      === 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

iD8DBQFG+qaAATb/zqfZUUQRAsD4AKCJZRTD9qds3h4DdiFmh2J6OYNCdQCfRdjU
DNiFvo+Xb/J95wr6hIl3TA4=
=kL3y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you
> have a better idea?

The fact that there is a disagreement about the name doesn't give us a
mandate to use both alternatives.  As long as the official project and
product name is PostgreSQL, the material produced by the project should
use that name.

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

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Derek Rodner wrote:
> > In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot.
>
> This is assuming the name of the project has changed. It hasn't. The
> name of this project is PostgreSQL.

But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
widely used.

> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...

Well, actually, I see it the opposite where you brow-beat folks until
you think they will quit.  (I am not a quitter, which I think you know.)
And I certainly do think the name change will finally be made, so I
don't feel like I have to subvert anything.

I thought it would not be a controversial change because I already
stated I wanted to make the alias more visible and no one objected.  Now
I have a few objections and a lot of people who think it is a good idea.

Frankly, if the alias takes hold we might not need to make the full name
change -- supressing this idea now might actually hasten the name
change.

> Bruce, with respect. Let's start with one thing at a time. We have
> changed the FAQ.

I see no reason we can't move forward with more.  I certainly have the
minimal time it would take to make simplistic changes:

    grep -A5 PostgreSQL *.sgml

shows me pretty much the places that need updating --- about 15 minutes.

> The community "just" accepted the FAQ change, and now you want to start
> this?
>
> Let it lay.

Again, why shut down the discussion?

--
  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:
>> Derek Rodner wrote:
>>> In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot.
>> This is assuming the name of the project has changed. It hasn't. The
>> name of this project is PostgreSQL.
>
> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> widely used.

I am unsure of the importance of this point. The name of the project is
PostgreSQL, not Postgres. If the alias doesn't get used, who cares.

>
>> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
>> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...
>
> Well, actually, I see it the opposite where you brow-beat folks until
> you think they will quit.  (I am not a quitter, which I think you know.)
> And I certainly do think the name change will finally be made, so I
> don't feel like I have to subvert anything.
>

Well at least you are honest :) but consider that (I am not a quitter,
which I think you know.)

So you and I are going to be at this *a long* time.

> I thought it would not be a controversial change because I already
> stated I wanted to make the alias more visible and no one objected.  Now
> I have a few objections and a lot of people who think it is a good idea.
>

If you review the thread it appears that the equation is similar to that
of the name change... e.g; no clear majority.

> Frankly, if the alias takes hold we might not need to make the full name
> change -- supressing this idea now might actually hasten the name
> change.

>> The community "just" accepted the FAQ change, and now you want to start
>> this?
>>
>> Let it lay.
>
> Again, why shut down the discussion?

Because.. silence is not approval the longer this thread goes on, the
more likely it will only be the very few participating. Likely the few
on core that participate and the few long time contributors such as myself.

Which means, it will never end, and continue to polarize external
community and people will just give up. That isn't good.

Brow beating is not good. It is negative and counter productive. You
won't win anything, but you certainly may cause a lot of antagonism (as
may I with my alternate view).

Note that this may be worth while in the future, but all things come in
time and I don't think this is the right time.

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

iD4DBQFG+sKuATb/zqfZUUQRAoetAJdmXVRST0P3oqXcL8Rx1dV78qR7AJ9X9DeR
YDSuKLmTKTFgwWDSBdunlg==
=OuF3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:

> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
>> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...
>
> Well, actually, I see it the opposite where you brow-beat folks until
> you think they will quit.  (I am not a quitter, which I think you know.)
> And I certainly do think the name change will finally be made, so I
> don't feel like I have to subvert anything.

It does seem to be a bit unseemly to be committing changes which you proposed
and couldn't reach any consensus on. I think you need to actually convince
people that making these changes is a good idea before you start making them
on your own.

--
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Derek Rodner wrote:
> >>> In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot.
> >> This is assuming the name of the project has changed. It hasn't. The
> >> name of this project is PostgreSQL.
> >
> > But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> > widely used.
>
> I am unsure of the importance of this point. The name of the project is
> PostgreSQL, not Postgres. If the alias doesn't get used, who cares.

It is used a lot more than the actual name, though.


--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> >>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> >>> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
> >> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
> >> our differences about product naming.  Technical documentation is the
> >> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent.  If you
> >> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
> >
> > If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> > propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you have
> > a better idea?
>
> I believe the FAQ is sufficient.

Because there seems to be agreement that the FAQ can use the alias I
have made that change and committed it.  There were 7 changes in the
main FAQ and 3 in the development FAQ.  You can see how you like it:

    http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html

(Give time for the update to hit the web site.)

--
  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:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Derek Rodner wrote:
> >>> In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot.
> >> This is assuming the name of the project has changed. It hasn't. The
> >> name of this project is PostgreSQL.
> >
> > But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> > widely used.
>
> I am unsure of the importance of this point. The name of the project is
> PostgreSQL, not Postgres. If the alias doesn't get used, who cares.

Well, if no one uses the alias then there is more motivation to make an
official name change, which I thought you didn't want.

> >> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
> >> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...
> >
> > Well, actually, I see it the opposite where you brow-beat folks until
> > you think they will quit.  (I am not a quitter, which I think you know.)
> > And I certainly do think the name change will finally be made, so I
> > don't feel like I have to subvert anything.
> >
>
> Well at least you are honest :) but consider that (I am not a quitter,
> which I think you know.)
>
> So you and I are going to be at this *a long* time.

No, you will have to give up eventually.  ;-)  I can see which way the
wind is blowing, and I think you can too.  ;-)

> > I thought it would not be a controversial change because I already
> > stated I wanted to make the alias more visible and no one objected.  Now
> > I have a few objections and a lot of people who think it is a good idea.
> >
>
> If you review the thread it appears that the equation is similar to that
> of the name change... e.g; no clear majority.

Yes perhaps 3:1 or 4:1 for the alias, so yea, pretty similar.

> > Frankly, if the alias takes hold we might not need to make the full name
> > change -- supressing this idea now might actually hasten the name
> > change.
>
> >> The community "just" accepted the FAQ change, and now you want to start
> >> this?
> >>
> >> Let it lay.
> >
> > Again, why shut down the discussion?
>
> Because.. silence is not approval the longer this thread goes on, the
> more likely it will only be the very few participating. Likely the few
> on core that participate and the few long time contributors such as myself.
>
> Which means, it will never end, and continue to polarize external
> community and people will just give up. That isn't good.

Seems like people are still contributing to the discussion.  I have
rarely seen things die if there are substantive ideas, which I think
this is one.

> Brow beating is not good. It is negative and counter productive. You
> won't win anything, but you certainly may cause a lot of antagonism (as
> may I with my alternate view).
>
> Note that this may be worth while in the future, but all things come in
> time and I don't think this is the right time.

I thought you thought the FAQ alias usage was OK?  I also don't see
waiting as fruitful.

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

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > >>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > >>> than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
> > >> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
> > >> our differences about product naming.  Technical documentation is the
> > >> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent.  If you
> > >> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
> > >
> > > If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> > > propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you have
> > > a better idea?
> >
> > I believe the FAQ is sufficient.
>
> Because there seems to be agreement that the FAQ can use the alias I
> have made that change and committed it.  There were 7 changes in the
> main FAQ and 3 in the development FAQ.  You can see how you like it:
>
>     http://wwwmaster.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ.html
>
> (Give time for the update to hit the web site.)

FYI, the URL above at 'wwwmaster' is now updated with my changes.

(Should I change the URL hostname mentions to be www.postgresql.org
(lowercase) rather than www.PostgreSQL.org?)

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

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

Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
> >> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...
> >
> > Well, actually, I see it the opposite where you brow-beat folks until
> > you think they will quit.  (I am not a quitter, which I think you know.)
> > And I certainly do think the name change will finally be made, so I
> > don't feel like I have to subvert anything.
>
> It does seem to be a bit unseemly to be committing changes which you proposed
> and couldn't reach any consensus on. I think you need to actually convince
> people that making these changes is a good idea before you start making them
> on your own.

I didn't make the changes at all. I just thought the suggestion of an
actual way to make the alias more visible would be welcomed by all.
Anyway we are still discussing, but I think we have agreement on the FAQ
so I did that.  If not, I will certainly revert.

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

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

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

>> Note that this may be worth while in the future, but all things come in
>> time and I don't think this is the right time.
>
> I thought you thought the FAQ alias usage was OK?  I also don't see
> waiting as fruitful.

Yes I am OK with the FAQ. I however do see waiting (not on the FAQ but
on the docs) as fruitful.

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

iD8DBQFG+s3jATb/zqfZUUQRAi0FAJ9Xa+dYrHkKE2M4E98UKo0RegVzaQCfb7D9
imoKp1ANS7LDXKqnSebm1gQ=
=UrGu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Gregory Stark wrote:
>
> "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
> >> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...
> >
> > Well, actually, I see it the opposite where you brow-beat folks until
> > you think they will quit.  (I am not a quitter, which I think you know.)
> > And I certainly do think the name change will finally be made, so I
> > don't feel like I have to subvert anything.
>
> It does seem to be a bit unseemly to be committing changes which you proposed
> and couldn't reach any consensus on. I think you need to actually convince
> people that making these changes is a good idea before you start making them
> on your own.

Oh, did you think the 'grep' was actually done in CVS?  No, it was just
an example of how I would find places to change.

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

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

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> >> Note that this may be worth while in the future, but all things come in
> >> time and I don't think this is the right time.
> >
> > I thought you thought the FAQ alias usage was OK?  I also don't see
> > waiting as fruitful.
>
> Yes I am OK with the FAQ. I however do see waiting (not on the FAQ but
> on the docs) as fruitful.

OK, good, let's see how people feel about the FAQ changes and if it
helps.

I do think having "PostgreSQL" lots of places in the same paragraph is
kind of long-winded, so I do think additional uses of "Postgres" will
be good.

FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
recognize it outside the USA.  Anyway, to me it shows an alias can get
general usage without renaming the city, but I do think we should
promote the alias in a focused way.

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

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> widely used.

I'm not sure if this has been thought through to the end.  If we make
the point that PostgreSQL can also be called Postgres, this does not
prevent anyone from calling it Postgre or any other forms that we might
not like.  It might in fact make people think that it has various names
and you can call it whatever you want.

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

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

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Note that this may be worth while in the future, but all things come in
>>> time and I don't think this is the right time.
>> I thought you thought the FAQ alias usage was OK?  I also don't see
>> waiting as fruitful.
>
> Yes I am OK with the FAQ. I however do see waiting (not on the FAQ but
> on the docs) as fruitful.

To follow up on this a bit. I liken this whole discussion to a beverage
I happen to enjoy. The good portion of the world knows it as Coke.
However, The "name" is Coca-Cola. All of their branding is Coca-Cola,
all of their logos etc...

However.. You will see, even on the same label:

Get a FREE Coke

Coca Cola

...

Coca Cola has been around since 1886.

What I see is this:

PostgreSQL will *always* be PostgreSQL

PostgreSQL will commonly be referred to as Postgres over time, starting
with the FAQ and general conversation.

In the long run the two will merge where the pedantic is PostgreSQL and
the common use is Postgres.

It is something however, that should not be rushed and should be done
"in due time". I feel Bruce is rushing.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>

- ---------------------------(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

iD8DBQFG+tAwATb/zqfZUUQRAvzqAKCsP4SGe78DIEfAy6gAQzj/bAkLxACeOEHF
7n+bEQGsWSUBAdIPJhF9r4c=
=rgk9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> > widely used.
>
> I'm not sure if this has been thought through to the end.  If we make
> the point that PostgreSQL can also be called Postgres, this does not
> prevent anyone from calling it Postgre or any other forms that we might
> not like.  It might in fact make people think that it has various names
> and you can call it whatever you want.

Well, they are already calling it "Postgre" without our help, so I see
us giving them a clear alternative to PostgreSQL as helping avoid
"Postgre".

But in the end, they can continue calling us whatever they want and we
can't stop them.

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

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

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> However.. You will see, even on the same label:
>
> Get a FREE Coke
>
> Coca Cola
>
> ...
>
> Coca Cola has been around since 1886.
>
> What I see is this:
>
> PostgreSQL will *always* be PostgreSQL
>
> PostgreSQL will commonly be referred to as Postgres over time, starting
> with the FAQ and general conversation.
>
> In the long run the two will merge where the pedantic is PostgreSQL and
> the common use is Postgres.

I think this is definitely a possible outcome.

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

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

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
>>> widely used.
>> I'm not sure if this has been thought through to the end.  If we make
>> the point that PostgreSQL can also be called Postgres, this does not
>> prevent anyone from calling it Postgre or any other forms that we might
>> not like.  It might in fact make people think that it has various names
>> and you can call it whatever you want.
>
> Well, they are already calling it "Postgre" without our help, so I see
> us giving them a clear alternative to PostgreSQL as helping avoid
> "Postgre".
>
> But in the end, they can continue calling us whatever they want and we
> can't stop them.

Then why are we bothering trying?

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

iD8DBQFG+tIuATb/zqfZUUQRAvYCAJ0a9k21SuAiJDBFpuHpREQBlZf9rACdFEtf
ESpyhnu45KG900AHgpCbRBE=
=ncKb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> >>> widely used.
> >> I'm not sure if this has been thought through to the end.  If we make
> >> the point that PostgreSQL can also be called Postgres, this does not
> >> prevent anyone from calling it Postgre or any other forms that we might
> >> not like.  It might in fact make people think that it has various names
> >> and you can call it whatever you want.
> >
> > Well, they are already calling it "Postgre" without our help, so I see
> > us giving them a clear alternative to PostgreSQL as helping avoid
> > "Postgre".
> >
> > But in the end, they can continue calling us whatever they want and we
> > can't stop them.
>
> Then why are we bothering trying?

Because though we can't _stop_ them, we can certainly influence them.
Why are you asking such simplistic questions?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.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:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>>> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
>>>>> widely used.
>>>> I'm not sure if this has been thought through to the end.  If we make
>>>> the point that PostgreSQL can also be called Postgres, this does not
>>>> prevent anyone from calling it Postgre or any other forms that we might
>>>> not like.  It might in fact make people think that it has various names
>>>> and you can call it whatever you want.
>>> Well, they are already calling it "Postgre" without our help, so I see
>>> us giving them a clear alternative to PostgreSQL as helping avoid
>>> "Postgre".
>>>
>>> But in the end, they can continue calling us whatever they want and we
>>> can't stop them.
>> Then why are we bothering trying?
>
> Because though we can't _stop_ them, we can certainly influence them.
> Why are you asking such simplistic questions?

It seemed odd to me. You said, "we can't stop them". So it seems like an
awful lot of wasted effort to try.

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

iD4DBQFG+tL0ATb/zqfZUUQRAuoBAJsFW25xechDIu1lfsmYsKWYKt672QCXVFLB
1THL9o9mWkrRXO0jegHufA==
=bIPj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >>>>> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> >>>>> widely used.
> >>>> I'm not sure if this has been thought through to the end.  If we make
> >>>> the point that PostgreSQL can also be called Postgres, this does not
> >>>> prevent anyone from calling it Postgre or any other forms that we might
> >>>> not like.  It might in fact make people think that it has various names
> >>>> and you can call it whatever you want.
> >>> Well, they are already calling it "Postgre" without our help, so I see
> >>> us giving them a clear alternative to PostgreSQL as helping avoid
> >>> "Postgre".
> >>>
> >>> But in the end, they can continue calling us whatever they want and we
> >>> can't stop them.
> >> Then why are we bothering trying?
> >
> > Because though we can't _stop_ them, we can certainly influence them.
> > Why are you asking such simplistic questions?
>
> It seemed odd to me. You said, "we can't stop them". So it seems like an
> awful lot of wasted effort to try.

Not sure why you see this as fatalist.  I can't _make_ many people do
much, but I can encourage them to do things, as you have seen.  That's
what we are doing here to encourage the use of "Postgres".

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

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

I've managed to avoid this thread so far but I will say one thing and
then reexit;  you guys are true and intense believers.

This is good.

Hello Bruce

I really unlike this game about change the name. If you get 100%
support then situation is simple, but you hasn't it. I use PostgreSQL,
Postgres and I doesn't any strong benefit with change of name.
Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.

I agree so official documentation have to use only name PostgreSQL. Is
technical documentation not articles. And again I don't see any
benefit. Currently Postgres is well know synonym for PostgreSQL and
there isn't necessary push it into documentation. Please stop it.

Regards

Pavel Stehule

2007/9/26, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > >>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >>>>> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> > >>>>> widely used.
> > >>>> I'm not sure if this has been thought through to the end.  If we make
> > >>>> the point that PostgreSQL can also be called Postgres, this does not
> > >>>> prevent anyone from calling it Postgre or any other forms that we might
> > >>>> not like.  It might in fact make people think that it has various names
> > >>>> and you can call it whatever you want.
> > >>> Well, they are already calling it "Postgre" without our help, so I see
> > >>> us giving them a clear alternative to PostgreSQL as helping avoid
> > >>> "Postgre".
> > >>>
> > >>> But in the end, they can continue calling us whatever they want and we
> > >>> can't stop them.
> > >> Then why are we bothering trying?
> > >
> > > Because though we can't _stop_ them, we can certainly influence them.
> > > Why are you asking such simplistic questions?
> >
> > It seemed odd to me. You said, "we can't stop them". So it seems like an
> > awful lot of wasted effort to try.
>
> Not sure why you see this as fatalist.  I can't _make_ many people do
> much, but I can encourage them to do things, as you have seen.  That's
> what we are doing here to encourage the use of "Postgres".
>
> --
>   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
>   EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
>
>   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>
> ---------------------------(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
>

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

Mike Ellsworth wrote:
> I've managed to avoid this thread so far but I will say one thing and
> then reexit;  you guys are true and intense believers.
>
> This is good.

:)

>
> ---------------------------(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

iD8DBQFG+td4ATb/zqfZUUQRAgfRAJ9Mwr/3coivNYKBe5euUnA9NDteIQCgm9Cg
WWJgEA2meZhwqzCPCHbZs0w=
=yLyI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
> So you want to use the alias instead of real name? Interesting.

Nothing wrong with that.  It's like how IBM uses "IBM" more
often than "International ..." in most everything they produce.

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
>> propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you
>> have a better idea?
>
> The fact that there is a disagreement about the name doesn't give us a
> mandate to use both alternatives.  As long as the official project and
> product name is PostgreSQL, the material produced by the project should
> use that name.
>

It seems many organizations and products that have a long and cumbersome
name use a short-form in their documentation more often than not.   Think
"J2EE" vs "Java 2 Platform, Enterprise Edition" or "SAP xRPM" who's
official name is "SAP® xApp™ Resource and Portfolio Management"

Pavel Stehule wrote:

> I really unlike this game about change the name. If you get 100%
> support then situation is simple, but you hasn't it. I use PostgreSQL,

Not that I am particular interested in this name change (and its
accompanying debate), but asking for 100% approval on a decision in OSS
is essentially deciding to never decide on anything, ever.

regards,
Lukas

Hi,

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 15:05 -0700, Ron Mayer wrote:
> > So you want to use the alias instead of real name? Interesting.
>
> Nothing wrong with that.  It's like how IBM uses "IBM" more
> often than "International ..." in most everything they produce.

Heh. We are not aliasing "Pxxxx Oxxxx Sxxxxx Txxxx Gxxxx Rxxx Exxxx
Sxxxx Qxxxx Lxxxx" ;) . Sure, IBM is better than its long form, but IMHO
is is not the same as PostgreSQL -> Postgres.

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

> ------- Original Message -------
> From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
> To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us>
> Sent: 26/09/07, 23:03:11
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
>
> Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.

I think you missed the point of promoting the preferred short name entirely - it doesn't require changing of any
packagesat all. 

Think of it like an acronym in a paper. You spell it out the first time you use it, then use the short form thereafter.
Similarlywe can use the full name in packages, titles, introductions etc. and the short form in body text where it
improvesflow when reading. 

Regards, Dave

> Not that I am particular interested in this name change (and its
> accompanying debate), but asking for 100% approval on a decision in OSS
> is essentially deciding to never decide on anything, ever.

sure, but there isn't 100% support of core hackers, what is important.
I see good as compromise FAQ change, and other's steps are not
necessary, maybe contra productive - now, some weeks from beta time.

Pavel

> >
> > Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.
>
> I think you missed the point of promoting the preferred short name entirely - it doesn't require changing of any
packagesat all. 
>
> Think of it like an acronym in a paper. You spell it out the first time you use it, then use the short form
thereafter.Similarly we can use the full name in packages, titles, introductions etc. and the short form in body text
whereit improves flow when reading. 
>

I haven't problem with using it in any articles, books, etc. But in
technical documentation I prefer using only official full name. That's
all. I was happy with FAQ compromise, and I hoped so this unsensed
debate was finished. But this is new opening closed question.

Pavel

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
> To follow up on this a bit. I liken this whole discussion to a beverage
> I happen to enjoy. The good portion of the world knows it as Coke.
> However, The "name" is Coca-Cola. All of their branding is Coca-Cola,
> all of their logos etc...

Hardly "all" of their branding.

Their "Coke Adds Life" campaigns were among the most memorable ads ever
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/ccmphtml/colahist.html#joe
Their 2006 slogan is "The Coke Side of Life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_slogans

> What I see is this:
>
> PostgreSQL will *always* be PostgreSQL
> PostgreSQL will commonly be referred to as Postgres over time, starting
> with the FAQ and general conversation.
> In the long run the two will merge where the pedantic is PostgreSQL and
> the common use is Postgres.

I imagine it'll go more like HP - where a couple places on the hp.com
web site say Hewlett-Packard, but those are few and far between.

Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Currently Postgres is well know synonym for PostgreSQL and
> there isn't necessary push it into documentation. Please stop it.

Postgres may be reasonably well known synonym for readers
on these mailinglists.

But to the rest of the world - including those people who just
read the postgreSQL web site and documentation, I think
postgre is a far more frequently assumed synonym.

This documentation proposal of Bruce's is the first time
I see anything visible that might give people hints that
Postgres is preferred over Postgre.

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 18:34, Dave Page wrote:
> > ------- Original Message -------
> > From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
> > To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us>
> > Sent: 26/09/07, 23:03:11
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
> >
> > Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.
>
> I think you missed the point of promoting the preferred short name entirely
> - it doesn't require changing of any packages at all.
>

What I missed was the idea that postgres was now the preferred name, and that
we should be promoting.  AFAICT the only agreement was that the FAQ should
officialy designate that Postgres is an acceptable short form the name
PostgreSQL.  All of todays changes seem to be an extension of that agreement
(apparently by fiat, from what I can tell)

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

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 18:48, Ron Mayer wrote:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Currently Postgres is well know synonym for PostgreSQL and
> > there isn't necessary push it into documentation. Please stop it.
>
> Postgres may be reasonably well known synonym for readers
> on these mailinglists.
>
> But to the rest of the world - including those people who just
> read the postgreSQL web site and documentation, I think
> postgre is a far more frequently assumed synonym.
>

See upthread information on google search terms. While not perfect, it shows
that postgre is the third most often used term, behind postgresql(1) and
postgres(2).  So no, postgre is not far more frequently assumed, but it is
used commonly..

> This documentation proposal of Bruce's is the first time
> I see anything visible that might give people hints that
> Postgres is preferred over Postgre.
>

Agreed, and afaik this was never agreed upon.

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

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 17:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
> there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
> Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
> don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
> recognize it outside the USA.  Anyway, to me it shows an alias can get
> general usage without renaming the city, but I do think we should
> promote the alias in a focused way.

So, I took a look at the philadelphia government website, just to see how much
the philadelphia "promotes" the use of the term philly, like you want to do
with Postgres. Doing a quick search, I get the following results:
Documents 1 to 5 of 14079 matching the query "philadelphia"
Documents 1 to 5 of 772 matching the query "philly"
If my math is right (and surely you can double check that for me) that's about
1% of the use of the term philly vs philadelphia.  That doesn't seem like
strong promotion.

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

On Wednesday 26 September 2007 11:35 am, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Derek Rodner wrote:
> > In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot.
>
> This is assuming the name of the project has changed. It hasn't. The
> name of this project is PostgreSQL.
>
> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...
>
> Bruce, with respect. Let's start with one thing at a time. We have
> changed the FAQ.
>
> The community "just" accepted the FAQ change, and now you want to start
> this?
>
> Let it lay.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
My take on this is that the length of this thread indicates that the change
has already happened. I have seen this topic raised before and die after a
relatively short time (in relation to this go around ) .  The fact that it
refuses to die this time is all the proof I need that Postgres is the new
name for the project. The official name may very well remain PostgreSQL, but
the user base will march on using Postgres. If you want a case study for
this, just look at the on going sagas that are the conversion to metric units
in the USA and UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6988521.stm). Officially
imperial units are the standard in both countries with metric units existing
in parallel. The failure to make the switch is chalked up to the difficulties
it would impose (sound familiar). The reality is that as an end user I have
to use and am familiar with metric system. I understand the difficulties
inherent in change of any sort, but change happens and it is time to get out
in front of this one.
--
Adrian Klaver
aklaver@comcast.net

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

Adrian Klaver wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 11:35 am, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Derek Rodner wrote:

> it would impose (sound familiar). The reality is that as an end user I have
> to use and am familiar with metric system. I understand the difficulties
> inherent in change of any sort, but change happens and it is time to get out
> in front of this one.

I disagree, it is not even close to time.

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

iD8DBQFG+x/BATb/zqfZUUQRAhESAJ9ufUe31UdBNd1Hba3QD3/AyhFw9gCeKQPQ
3f3wjyCxzaQXFTwqnvKun/4=
=4grF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hello Bruce
>
> I really unlike this game about change the name. If you get 100%
> support then situation is simple, but you hasn't it. I use PostgreSQL,
> Postgres and I doesn't any strong benefit with change of name.
> Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.
>
> I agree so official documentation have to use only name PostgreSQL. Is
> technical documentation not articles. And again I don't see any
> benefit. Currently Postgres is well know synonym for PostgreSQL and
> there isn't necessary push it into documentation. Please stop it.

We don't require 100% agreement on anything becuase it is hard to get
anything done.  We are looking for general agreement, and I think we are
trying to get there.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------


>
> Regards
>
> Pavel Stehule
>
> 2007/9/26, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > >> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > >>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > >>>>> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> > > >>>>> widely used.
> > > >>>> I'm not sure if this has been thought through to the end.  If we make
> > > >>>> the point that PostgreSQL can also be called Postgres, this does not
> > > >>>> prevent anyone from calling it Postgre or any other forms that we might
> > > >>>> not like.  It might in fact make people think that it has various names
> > > >>>> and you can call it whatever you want.
> > > >>> Well, they are already calling it "Postgre" without our help, so I see
> > > >>> us giving them a clear alternative to PostgreSQL as helping avoid
> > > >>> "Postgre".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But in the end, they can continue calling us whatever they want and we
> > > >>> can't stop them.
> > > >> Then why are we bothering trying?
> > > >
> > > > Because though we can't _stop_ them, we can certainly influence them.
> > > > Why are you asking such simplistic questions?
> > >
> > > It seemed odd to me. You said, "we can't stop them". So it seems like an
> > > awful lot of wasted effort to try.
> >
> > Not sure why you see this as fatalist.  I can't _make_ many people do
> > much, but I can encourage them to do things, as you have seen.  That's
> > what we are doing here to encourage the use of "Postgres".
> >
> > --
> >   Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
> >   EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
> >
> >   + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> >
> > ---------------------------(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
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

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

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

Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > >
> > > Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.
> >
> > I think you missed the point of promoting the preferred short name entirely - it doesn't require changing of any
packagesat all. 
> >
> > Think of it like an acronym in a paper. You spell it out the first time you use it, then use the short form
thereafter.Similarly we can use the full name in packages, titles, introductions etc. and the short form in body text
whereit improves flow when reading. 
> >
>
> I haven't problem with using it in any articles, books, etc. But in
> technical documentation I prefer using only official full name. That's
> all. I was happy with FAQ compromise, and I hoped so this unsensed
> debate was finished. But this is new opening closed question.

Sorry, but the question was never closed.  (Not sure how you concluded
that.)  I will be asking for feedback from general and we still might
make an official change --- we will see.

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

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

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 17:30, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
> > there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
> > Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
> > don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
> > recognize it outside the USA.  Anyway, to me it shows an alias can get
> > general usage without renaming the city, but I do think we should
> > promote the alias in a focused way.
>
> So, I took a look at the philadelphia government website, just to see how much
> the philadelphia "promotes" the use of the term philly, like you want to do
> with Postgres. Doing a quick search, I get the following results:
> Documents 1 to 5 of 14079 matching the query "philadelphia"
> Documents 1 to 5 of 772 matching the query "philly"
> If my math is right (and surely you can double check that for me) that's about
> 1% of the use of the term philly vs philadelphia.  That doesn't seem like
> strong promotion.

Agreed.  "Philly" was promoted by the community itself over a long time
period.  There is much more talk about the city than what exists on the
web site, of course.  Who says "Philadelphia cheese steak"?

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

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

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2007 18:34, Dave Page wrote:
> > > ------- Original Message -------
> > > From: "Pavel Stehule" <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
> > > To: "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us>
> > > Sent: 26/09/07, 23:03:11
> > > Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
> > >
> > > Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.
> >
> > I think you missed the point of promoting the preferred short name entirely
> > - it doesn't require changing of any packages at all.
> >
>
> What I missed was the idea that postgres was now the preferred name, and that
> we should be promoting.  AFAICT the only agreement was that the FAQ should
> officialy designate that Postgres is an acceptable short form the name
> PostgreSQL.  All of todays changes seem to be an extension of that agreement
> (apparently by fiat, from what I can tell)

The goal was to promote "Postgres" as an alternate name.  I thought I
had general agreement from the group to do this in both FAQs.  If not, I
will revert it.

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

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

> FYI, the URL above at 'wwwmaster' is now updated with my changes.
>
> (Should I change the URL hostname mentions to be www.postgresql.org
> (lowercase) rather than www.PostgreSQL.org?)

Yes, please.

/Magnus

> FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
> there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
> Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
> don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
> recognize it outside the USA.

Yes, you do. You may try not to, and you may do it less, but you certainly do. Which just proves the force of habit.

/Magnus

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same could be done
> with the FAQ.

FYI, now that I have updated the FAQs I will be back in 2-3 weeks to ask
again about doing the same in the main documentation.  (See the FAQs for
examples of the output.)  Again, if I get an overwhelming majority, I
will make the change.  The doc changes are really only important if they
are done before the final 8.3 release so there is no rush.

So, no, this issue is not dead.  And no, I am not doing this by fiat but
rather based on clear majority opinion in this group.  Also, for those
opposed to a name change, making these changes makes making an official
name change _less_ likely.

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

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

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > FYI, the URL above at 'wwwmaster' is now updated with my changes.
> >
> > (Should I change the URL hostname mentions to be www.postgresql.org
> > (lowercase) rather than www.PostgreSQL.org?)
>
> Yes, please.

Done.

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

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

Bruce Momjian a écrit :
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>>> Note that this may be worth while in the future, but all things come in
>>>> time and I don't think this is the right time.
>>> I thought you thought the FAQ alias usage was OK?  I also don't see
>>> waiting as fruitful.
>> Yes I am OK with the FAQ. I however do see waiting (not on the FAQ but
>> on the docs) as fruitful.
>
> OK, good, let's see how people feel about the FAQ changes and if it
> helps.
>
> I do think having "PostgreSQL" lots of places in the same paragraph is
> kind of long-winded, so I do think additional uses of "Postgres" will
> be good.
>
> FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
> there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
> Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
> don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
> recognize it outside the USA.  Anyway, to me it shows an alias can get
> general usage without renaming the city, but I do think we should
> promote the alias in a focused way.
>

I completely agree on this example. But, really, I don't think the city
hall of Philadelphia uses "Philly" on official papers. City hall
officials certainly use it on interview or things like that. But they
won't write it.

Regards.


--
Guillaume.
 http://www.postgresqlfr.org
 http://dalibo.com

Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
> > there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
> > Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
> > don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
> > recognize it outside the USA.
>
> Yes, you do. You may try not to, and you may do it less, but you
> certainly do. Which just proves the force of habit.

Yea, I am sure you are right.   We also say "water" strangely (Wu-der)
which confuses many people too.

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

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

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



- --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 02:17:18 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> > FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
>> > there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
>> > Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
>> > don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
>> > recognize it outside the USA.
>>
>> Yes, you do. You may try not to, and you may do it less, but you
>> certainly do. Which just proves the force of habit.
>
> Yea, I am sure you are right.   We also say "water" strangely (Wu-der)
> which confuses many people too.

The point being made is/was that although Postgres is considered as acceptable
as Philly is, PostgreSQL is the official name, and what should be used in the
*official* documentation ...


- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG+0tk4QvfyHIvDvMRAmKxAJ9WRxJJWOQP6GaRM7xE1VbCem/AugCfSaaj
4dKpDfd24KCYOG8YRJBwIk8=
=Bo+z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> - --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 02:17:18 -0400 Bruce Momjian
> <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> > FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
> >> > there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
> >> > Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
> >> > don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
> >> > recognize it outside the USA.
> >>
> >> Yes, you do. You may try not to, and you may do it less, but you
> >> certainly do. Which just proves the force of habit.
> >
> > Yea, I am sure you are right.   We also say "water" strangely (Wu-der)
> > which confuses many people too.
>
> The point being made is/was that although Postgres is considered as acceptable
> as Philly is, PostgreSQL is the official name, and what should be used in the
> *official* documentation ...

OK, but when how do we promote the alias?  And isn't the FAQ official?
We don't have a community that lives together to promote an alias --- we
have to do it in print somehow.  Have you looked at the FAQ changes.
Please do --- I think it looks fine.

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

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

2007/9/27, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > - --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 02:17:18 -0400 Bruce Momjian
> > <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >
> > > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > >> > FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
> > >> > there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
> > >> > Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
> > >> > don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
> > >> > recognize it outside the USA.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, you do. You may try not to, and you may do it less, but you
> > >> certainly do. Which just proves the force of habit.
> > >
> > > Yea, I am sure you are right.   We also say "water" strangely (Wu-der)
> > > which confuses many people too.
> >
> > The point being made is/was that although Postgres is considered as acceptable
> > as Philly is, PostgreSQL is the official name, and what should be used in the
> > *official* documentation ...
>
> OK, but when how do we promote the alias?  And isn't the FAQ official?
> We don't have a community that lives together to promote an alias --- we
> have to do it in print somehow.  Have you looked at the FAQ changes.
> Please do --- I think it looks fine.
>
> --
FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?

Regards
Pavel

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 02:06 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> The goal was to promote "Postgres" as an alternate name.  I thought I
> had general agreement from the group to do this in both FAQs.  If not,
> I will revert it.

IIRC, the consensus was only mentioning it as an alias, as you wrote in
#1.1 of FAQ. They rest is not needed (and confusing) IMHO -- because
people may not read the FAQ from the beginning.

So the other Postgres' should be reverted, IMHO.

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

On Thu, Sep 27, 2007 at 02:17:18AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > > FYI, I live near Philadelphia, but everyone here calls it "Philly", and
> > > there are even companies that use the name like "Philly Pretzel
> > > Company", http://www.phillysoftpretzelfactory.com/pretzelstory.html.  I
> > > don't call it "Philly" when I am out of the country because few people
> > > recognize it outside the USA.
> >
> > Yes, you do. You may try not to, and you may do it less, but you
> > certainly do. Which just proves the force of habit.
>
> Yea, I am sure you are right.   We also say "water" strangely (Wu-der)
> which confuses many people too.

Unless yuo actually spell it differently, that's a differnt thing. We're
talkign written docs now.

//Magnus

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 09:31 +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
> bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?

+1.

Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/

Pavel Stehule wrote:
> FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
> bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?

Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
acceptable short form should be promoted?

Earlier in this round of discussion it seemed that most people didn't
like seeing postgre, but we were split on an official name change to
Postgres. Doesn't it therefore make sense to leave the official name,
and just promote the acceptable short name?

/D

2007/9/27, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
> > bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?
>
> Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
> acceptable short form should be promoted?
>
> Earlier in this round of discussion it seemed that most people didn't
> like seeing postgre, but we were split on an official name change to
> Postgres. Doesn't it therefore make sense to leave the official name,
> and just promote the acceptable short name?

?? I am sorry, but I really don't see any sense for it. No.

Pavel

Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 2007/9/27, Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>:
>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
>>> bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?
>> Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
>> acceptable short form should be promoted?
>>
>> Earlier in this round of discussion it seemed that most people didn't
>> like seeing postgre, but we were split on an official name change to
>> Postgres. Doesn't it therefore make sense to leave the official name,
>> and just promote the acceptable short name?
>
> ?? I am sorry, but I really don't see any sense for it. No.

So you're in the "Don't care what people call the project" camp rather
than the "We need to change but this is the wrong way" one?

Just trying to understand your thinking on this.

/D

>
> So you're in the "Don't care what people call the project" camp rather
> than the "We need to change but this is the wrong way" one?
>
> Just trying to understand your thinking on this.
>

I have not any problem with pronunciation PostgreSQL or Postgre or
Postgres. (czech language isn't any problem with this). I can
understand, so others languages can have problem. Accepting Postgres
as official short name can good compromise. My sorted arguments:

1. PostgreSQL is good trademark now.
2. change name will do: a) problems for packagers or b)
inconsistencies between name and packages.
3. All well products has DB or SQL in name.
4. PostgreSQL is well indexed by google - change name will do worst rank

The change of name is possible, but I believe, it has to be related to
change of product (add more not SQL features (streaming database
features, etc).

Pavel

2007-09-27_01:46:08-0400 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:

> We don't require 100% agreement on anything becuase it is hard to get
> anything done.

100% no.  A clear consensus, yes.  Or maybe we should just give anyone
with an opinion on the subject CVS commit privileges and hash it out
there?  I don't see any evidence in this thread that a clear majority
would prefer the use of 'Postgres' over the official name 'PostgreSQL'
in official documentation.  Is 'Postgres' acceptable shorthand (like
'Philly') - yes.  Has the official name changed?  No.  If the official
name is PostgreSQL, it should continue to be used as such, rather than
subverted in a thinly disguised naming coup.

> We are looking for general agreement, and I think we are trying to get
> there.

In chess, when you make the same move repeatedly without making any
progress, it is called a draw.  The game mercifully ends.  I have not
seen one person say "Oh, I understand where you are coming from now,
I've changed my mind completely!".  This conversation is going nowhere
right now.  Please don't bring it up again in three weeks.  Bring it up
in three years maybe.

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

2007-09-27_01:46:08-0400 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:

> We don't require 100% agreement on anything becuase it is hard to get
> anything done.

100% no.  A clear consensus, yes.  Or maybe we should just give anyone
with an opinion on the subject CVS commit privileges and hash it out
there?  I don't see any evidence in this thread that a clear majority
would prefer the use of 'Postgres' over the official name 'PostgreSQL'
in official documentation.  Is 'Postgres' acceptable shorthand (like
'Philly') - yes.  Has the official name changed?  No.  If the official
name is PostgreSQL, it should continue to be used as such, rather than
subverted in a thinly disguised naming coup.

> We are looking for general agreement, and I think we are trying to get
> there.

In chess, when you make the same move repeatedly without making any
progress, it is called a draw.  The game mercifully ends.  I have not
seen one person say "Oh, I understand where you are coming from now,
I've changed my mind completely!".  This conversation is going nowhere
right now.  Please don't bring it up again in three weeks.  Bring it up
in three years maybe.

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Andy Astor wrote:
> With respect, Ron, the majority of people in the original conversation
> were clearly in favor of a change, as Bruce has said. In this more
> recent thread, the most vocal opponents have made their opinions clear,
> but most of the original participants have not. This does not appear to
> me to be a “naming coup.” Just a reasoned response to the many opinions
> voiced over a reasonable period of time.

The crux of this (and its the case with most other OSS projects without
a dedicated voting system) is that the "votes" are scattered throught
various threads. There is not a proper place where people can cast (and
update) their vote. As such anyone majority is just a snapshot of who
cares to comment on this thread (again and again since both sides have
people unwilling to give in).

regards,
Lukas

On 9/27/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote:
> 100% no.  A clear consensus, yes.

What do you consider a clear consensus?  There's a big difference
between 60%, 75%, and 99.9% agreement?

> Or maybe we should just give anyone with an opinion on the
> subject CVS commit privileges and hash it out there?

#!/bin/bash
while [ 1 -eq 1 ]
do
    cd pgsql
    cvs update
    cd ..
    cp -Rp pgsql pgsql-dev
    # Could just be done with find + sed, but that's no fun :)
    grep -r "PostgreSQL" pgsql-dev/* \
        | cut -d : -f 1 | sort | uniq \
        | xargs sed -i 's/PostgreSQL/Postgres/g'
    cd pgsql-dev
    cvs commit
    cd ..
    rm -rf pgsql-dev
    echo "Waiting until next time..."
    sleep 30
done

Bring on CVS commit privilege?

> it should continue to be used as such, rather than
> subverted in a thinly disguised naming coup.

I can't determine whether this is an excessive exaggeration or a
conspiracy theory.

> In chess, when you make the same move repeatedly without making any
> progress, it is called a draw.

Qxf7#

> This conversation is going nowhere right now.  Please don't
> bring it up again in three weeks.  Bring it up in three years
> maybe.

As I see it, there are less than ten or so people vocally against the
official name change and considerably more for it.  Of those against
it, two have a business-related financial stake in the name change.
Truly, is it the PostgreSQL community these individuals are looking
out for, or their own businesses?

Frankly, the only substantial community claim I've seen against the
name change is from several members of the JPUG.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation                | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor          | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837                        | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

2007-09-27_09:42:59-0400 Andy Astor <andy.astor@enterprisedb.com>:

> With respect, Ron, the majority of people in the original conversation were
> clearly in favor of a change, as Bruce has said.

Establishing a clear majority would presume that it was somehow decided
that this forum is the proper venue for deciding such things.  When did
that happen?  As I've said before, I'm on this forum, and I don't think
my vote should count.  Why would anyone want to gerrymander the boundary
of this or that month's participation in an open mailling list as the
basis of PostgreSQL's governance?  What rules of procedure are we
following here?  As far as I can tell, the PostgreSQL project has no
political organization or structure whatsoever.  I'm not saying that is
good or bad (I do think it's a larger more important issue than Postgres
vs. PostgreSQL though), but I do think anyone who posits that a name
change has been decided or that some kind of majority consensus was
established is jumping to conclusions.

> In this more recent thread, the most vocal opponents have made their
> opinions clear, but most of the original participants have not.

Well if this forum is where we take the measure of things, then we
should say the "most vocal opponents" are now in the majority, no?  When
do the counts count, exactly?

> This does not appear to me to be a ³naming coup.² Just a reasoned
> response to the many opinions voiced over a reasonable period of time.

I disagree, and I don't think it is reasonable at all to presume to
change the official documentation such that it uses an abbreviation in
lieue of the official name.

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

On 9/27/07, Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org> wrote:
> gain and again since both sides have people unwilling to give in

Then we are at an impasse ... the battle of wits has begun

--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation                | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor          | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837                        | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

2007-09-27_10:44:01-0400 "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>:
> On 9/27/07, Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org> wrote:
> > gain and again since both sides have people unwilling to give in
>
> Then we are at an impasse ... the battle of wits has begun

A battle of the best CVS update scripts perhaps?  :)

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

On 9/27/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote:
> A battle of the best CVS update scripts perhaps?  :)

:)

--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation                | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor          | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837                        | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

On Thursday 27 September 2007 02:24, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The point being made is/was that although Postgres is considered as
> > acceptable as Philly is, PostgreSQL is the official name, and what should
> > be used in the *official* documentation ...
>
> OK, but when how do we promote the alias?  And isn't the FAQ official?
> We don't have a community that lives together to promote an alias --- we
> have to do it in print somehow.  Have you looked at the FAQ changes.
> Please do --- I think it looks fine.

I think it is confusing to use two forms of the name in the same
documentation.  Especially where you have a Q & A for where the Q is
PostgreSQL and the A refers to Postgres.  Those people the lord has blessed
enough to have been spared this thread probably wont have a clear
understanding of why there are two names being scattered throughout the
information.

IMHO, if we really believe the general consensous is that people prefer to use
the name Postgres, then why not let the momentum build organically from
sources outside of the core project; ie. blogs, articles, 3rd party software,
and other sources. Surely if there is strong demand, we should see it's use
pickup there.   If we were to revist the topic in 6 months and you could show
google analytics data that showed Postgres as the most common usage of the
name, I think that would be a powerful argument.

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

On Thursday 27 September 2007 09:42, Andy Astor wrote:
> With respect, Ron, the majority of people in the original conversation were
> clearly in favor of a change, as Bruce has said. > In this more recent
> thread, the most vocal opponents have made their opinions clear, but most
> of the original participants have not. This does not appear to me to be a
> ³naming coup.² Just a reasoned response to the many opinions voiced over a
> reasonable period of time.
>

If the original conversation didn't produce enough consensous to rename the
project, I don't see how that can be interpreted as "We won't rename the
project, but we will change 50% of all references in the docs/faq/website to
the other name".

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

On Thursday 27 September 2007 04:37, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > So you're in the "Don't care what people call the project" camp rather
> > than the "We need to change but this is the wrong way" one?
> >
> > Just trying to understand your thinking on this.
>
> I have not any problem with pronunciation PostgreSQL or Postgre or
> Postgres. (czech language isn't any problem with this). I can
> understand, so others languages can have problem. Accepting Postgres
> as official short name can good compromise. My sorted arguments:
>
> 1. PostgreSQL is good trademark now.

Actually PostgreSQL's trademark status, in a legal sense, is pretty much
non-existent, and will never be much more than that.  The same can be said
for Postgres though, so I think this is a wash.

> 2. change name will do: a) problems for packagers or b)
> inconsistencies between name and packages.

It creates more work for packagers, but I haven't heard any non-starters in
this area. I'll grant that it will probably lead to some additional confusion
in the user base initially.

> 3. All well products has DB or SQL in name.

Oracle, Informix, Progress, Ingres, Vertica.... I think there is enough
evidence on both sides that this can work or not.  I'd give the nod that
people who know software development but know nothing of open source
databases are probably more likely to find us with SQL in the product name,
but I'm not really sure how valid that is (for example, we are the #3 link in
google for "open source database", I don't think that would change)

> 4. PostgreSQL is well indexed by google - change name will do worst rank
>

True in a strict sense for the term "PostgreSQL", but "Postgres" is also well
ranked, but by changing the name to Postgres, you'd likely combined most of
these references, and also pick up some other uses like Postgre that should
decline if we move to the short form.

> The change of name is possible, but I believe, it has to be related to
> change of product (add more not SQL features (streaming database
> features, etc).
>

Interesting thought.

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

2007-09-27_10:36:43-0400 "Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com>:

> Of those against it, two have a business-related financial stake in
> the name change.  Truly, is it the PostgreSQL community these
> individuals are looking out for, or their own businesses?

What is the difference?

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

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



- --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 02:24:40 -0400 Bruce Momjian
<bruce@momjian.us> wrote:


> OK, but when how do we promote the alias?  And isn't the FAQ official?
> We don't have a community that lives together to promote an alias --- we
> have to do it in print somehow.  Have you looked at the FAQ changes.
> Please do --- I think it looks fine.

We don't *promote* the alias ... we mention it in the FAQ as being *accepted*
...

- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG+8W04QvfyHIvDvMRAjw0AKDQy3EkXYUldM6EXOCtyrkGbJ3dyACfe2ER
uAnYTAT8+iPzJr6+4kRVGWE=
=wTbZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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



- --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 09:15:03 +0100 Dave Page
<dpage@postgresql.org> wrote:


> So you're in the "Don't care what people call the project" camp rather
> than the "We need to change but this is the wrong way" one?

That's the camp I'm in ... although I can't recall ever seeing anyone refer to
it as Postgre, except in this list ... to be totally honest, if I ever *heard*
anyone refer to it as Postgre, I would have most likely assumed that it was a
language issue ... in French, the 's' would have been silent, so someone French
spelling it 'Postgres', would possibly pronounce it Postgre ...

All we should be "promoting" is that it isn't *wrong* to use Postgres ... what
Bruce is advocating is creating more confusion by flip-flopping between names
within the official documentation ...

- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG+8dc4QvfyHIvDvMRAssIAJ4uTQVw5zFEqeBhaUco5yvnbKIgJwCeJU1k
eddOVQbESEMgEtKNc0EqjYk=
=DlgE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sep 27, 2007, at 8:01 AM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> - --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 02:24:40 -0400 Bruce Momjian
> <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>
>
>> OK, but when how do we promote the alias?  And isn't the FAQ
>> official?
>> We don't have a community that lives together to promote an alias
>> --- we
>> have to do it in print somehow.  Have you looked at the FAQ changes.
>> Please do --- I think it looks fine.
>
> We don't *promote* the alias ... we mention it in the FAQ as being
> *accepted*

It's not just mentioned in the FAQ as being accepted. The FAQ uses a
random mish-mash of both Postgres and PostgreSQL. In most cases
it feels as though they're two closely related, but different products.

For example, FAQ 1.2 talks about PostgreSQL, then parenthetically
tells people to look elsewhere to get involved in Postgres development.

FAQ 1.3 makes it clear that Windows XP and friends will run
PostgreSQL, but Windows 95 and friends can only run Postgres.

FAQ 1.8 says that any bugs found with PostgreSQL should be
reported to the developers, but if there's a problem with Postgres
you should simply update to the latest release.

It'd be easy to assume that PostgreSQL and Postgres were not the
same thing (perhaps commercial and open source variants of the
same thing). Heck, I'm not sure it doesn't imply that, and I know
they're the same thing, English is my native language and I'm
aware of the -advocacy thread of doom.

It's a misleading piece of documentation at this point, and should
be fixed.

Cheers,
   Steve

On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:

> The crux of this (and its the case with most other OSS projects without a
> dedicated voting system) is that the "votes" are scattered throught various
> threads. There is not a proper place where people can cast (and update) their
> vote.

The poll EnterpriseDB has been running at
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com/ is up to 238 votes, with 56% for the
change to Postgres, 28% against, and 15% don't care.  That's a
considerably larger sample than the number of people who have expressed an
opinion on the mailing lists, and 66% of the people who do care voting for
the change is a pretty clear majority.  I did a rough count of the earlier
thread on this subject, and I recall the distribution was similar there;
my read has been that the people against the name change have just gotten
increasing vocal relative to their numbers since then.  This is no
surprise as Bruce's actions have been satisfying those for the name change
while aggrevating those against.

The thought of "polling" via asking this question on the pgsql-general
list horrifies me; I'd hate to see that list hit by the denial of service
effect this one has taken addressing this issue, and I don't think that's
enough exposure either.  If the community really wants to get some serious
scale polling on this subject, I'd suggest putting a poll somewhere that
people reading the 8.3 press releases would come across it.

What I started doing recently every time I'm tempted to jump into this
thread is instead take a look at
http://developer.postgresql.org/index.php/Postgres to try and figure out
how to add something useful to that rather than posting into the argument.

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

>
> > 3. All well products has DB or SQL in name.
>
> Oracle, Informix, Progress, Ingres, Vertica.... I think there is enough
> evidence on both sides that this can work or not.  I'd give the nod that
> people who know software development but know nothing of open source
> databases are probably more likely to find us with SQL in the product name,
> but I'm not really sure how valid that is (for example, we are the #3 link in
> google for "open source database", I don't think that would change)

look to official names

Oracle Database ..
Informix Dynamic Server
Progress RDBMS

Pavel

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Hello Bruce
>>
>> I really unlike this game about change the name. If you get 100%
>> support then situation is simple, but you hasn't it. I use PostgreSQL,
>> Postgres and I doesn't any strong benefit with change of name.
>> Devrim's argument about renaming all packages is really strong for me.
>>
>> I agree so official documentation have to use only name PostgreSQL. Is
>> technical documentation not articles. And again I don't see any
>> benefit. Currently Postgres is well know synonym for PostgreSQL and
>> there isn't necessary push it into documentation. Please stop it.
>
> We don't require 100% agreement on anything becuase it is hard to get
> anything done.  We are looking for general agreement, and I think we are
> trying to get there.
>

We had general agreement. We modified the FAQ.

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

iD8DBQFG+9XwATb/zqfZUUQRAsHaAKCCEcEl77tZ9jWLJzkdEi7A4mgQTgCbB0Eb
2TWkq3PgiMg35PkzeI4dV2A=
=wLII
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:

>> What I missed was the idea that postgres was now the preferred name, and that
>> we should be promoting.  AFAICT the only agreement was that the FAQ should
>> officialy designate that Postgres is an acceptable short form the name
>> PostgreSQL.  All of todays changes seem to be an extension of that agreement
>> (apparently by fiat, from what I can tell)
>
> The goal was to promote "Postgres" as an alternate name.  I thought I
> had general agreement from the group to do this in both FAQs.  If not, I
> will revert it.

No. The goal was to "accept" Postgres as an alternate name. There is
very clearly a difference between "accepting" something and "promoting"
something.

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

iD8DBQFG+9ZJATb/zqfZUUQRAnrvAKCA5QL2ez6KvKIcSiriK8URfPPtmACfSGRn
0HpHVqfN9gtawuVEM1yA89c=
=zPLA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
>> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same could be done
>> with the FAQ.
>
> FYI, now that I have updated the FAQs I will be back in 2-3 weeks to ask
> again about doing the same in the main documentation.  (See the FAQs for
> examples of the output.)  Again, if I get an overwhelming majority, I
> will make the change.  The doc changes are really only important if they
> are done before the final 8.3 release so there is no rush.
>
> So, no, this issue is not dead.  And no, I am not doing this by fiat but
> rather based on clear majority opinion in this group.


There has been zero clear majority.

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

iD8DBQFG+9aoATb/zqfZUUQRAjzxAKCeAkCw9tFe6i6HLgddK5qKMd4PpQCdEl60
LWyuZet+U7ZTWgdJOqfX4YE=
=77g6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> - --On Thursday, September 27, 2007 02:17:18 -0400 Bruce Momjian
>> <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:

>>>> Yes, you do. You may try not to, and you may do it less, but you
>>>> certainly do. Which just proves the force of habit.
>>> Yea, I am sure you are right.   We also say "water" strangely (Wu-der)
>>> which confuses many people too.
>> The point being made is/was that although Postgres is considered as acceptable
>> as Philly is, PostgreSQL is the official name, and what should be used in the
>> *official* documentation ...
>
> OK, but when how do we promote the alias?

We don't, there is no reason to. It exists. That is enough. It will get
used or it won't. I imagine it will.

> And isn't the FAQ official?
> We don't have a community that lives together to promote an alias --- we
> have to do it in print somehow.  Have you looked at the FAQ changes.
> Please do --- I think it looks fine.

Are you talking about this FAQ change?

PostgreSQL is pronounced Post-Gres-Q-L, but can also be referred to as
simply Postgres, particularly in conversation. (For those curious about
how to say "PostgreSQL", an audio file  is available.)

I didn't see any others. I have zero problem with the 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

iD8DBQFG+9cZATb/zqfZUUQRAqVYAKCrOmA5PD8PyEJl2NG3NLhDpvGTTQCfRIg8
B2Q9D1nBEpZGNbppU+o99Sg=
=qk41
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Dave Page wrote:
> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
>> bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?
>
> Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
> acceptable short form should be promoted?

What people? The three or four that I run into once a month? So what...

>
> Earlier in this round of discussion it seemed that most people didn't
> like seeing postgre, but we were split on an official name change to
> Postgres. Doesn't it therefore make sense to leave the official name,
> and just promote the acceptable short name?

IMO, no. It makes sense to leave the official name and accept the short
name.

Joshua D. Drake


>
> /D
>


- --

      === 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

iD8DBQFG+9dwATb/zqfZUUQRApSYAJ9IJtcvve4Nicysu2dLWhzcJ9azrQCeLpZI
3T06KAdX49aYzsIj4Ow7iDs=
=+082
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Ron Peterson <ron.peterson@yellowbank.com> wrote:
>> 100% no.  A clear consensus, yes.

> As I see it, there are less than ten or so people vocally against the
> official name change and considerably more for it.  Of those against
> it, two have a business-related financial stake in the name change.
> Truly, is it the PostgreSQL community these individuals are looking
> out for, or their own businesses?

There is not once person on this list arguing one way or the other that
doesn't have "some" stake in the name. The business has nothing to do
with this. If I felt the "name" would hurt or help me, I certainly
wouldnt' be using the name "Command Prompt" for a "Database" company.

>
> Frankly, the only substantial community claim I've seen against the
> name change is from several members of the JPUG.
>

Are we forgetting the french and italians?

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

iD8DBQFG+9h2ATb/zqfZUUQRAgUZAKCTGuwGtw0akMOcHivi6UqHb6DTMQCcCSuJ
cbaO9ndNNQ+yDTLTXvwSMm0=
=9yZr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

Steve Atkins wrote:

>> We don't *promote* the alias ... we mention it in the FAQ as being
>> *accepted*
>
> It's not just mentioned in the FAQ as being accepted. The FAQ uses a
> random mish-mash of both Postgres and PostgreSQL. In most cases
> it feels as though they're two closely related, but different products.
>
> For example, FAQ 1.2 talks about PostgreSQL, then parenthetically
> tells people to look elsewhere to get involved in Postgres development.
>
> FAQ 1.3 makes it clear that Windows XP and friends will run
> PostgreSQL, but Windows 95 and friends can only run Postgres.

Hmmm... I didn't see these changes. These are clearly bad and short
sighted, nor were they approved by consensus.

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

iD8DBQFG+9kMATb/zqfZUUQRAhkqAJ0S1ISYhrczEmuH3pvxpBP8D5h8KwCeNi6H
Tgt8vP1msyFS1vR8zs/JBBw=
=5Bss
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> There is not once person on this list arguing one way or the other that
> doesn't have "some" stake in the name. The business has nothing to do

Ok, let me be the first.  I have no stake in the name... and honestly, I
haven't read the entire thread because I didn't have the time to do so.
But I'm kind of confused as to why it's such a big deal, or - as many
others wonder - why people are wasting so many neural cycles (which could
be used for economic output) on this.

Let me present this analogy: MS SQL Server.  In all of the official
documentation, Microsoft refers to it as its proper name.  However,
whilst discussing it with other IT folks, you'll hear it referred to as
everything from "Sequel Server" to "SQL Server" to "Squeal Server" to
"Squalid Server".

Likewise, the PG documentation should keep referring to it as PostgreSQL,
and people will refer to it as whatever they like.  There isn't a current,
competing product with a name like Postgres, so there should be no
confusion when someone says "Postgres" as to exactly what they're talking
about.

For those who have pronunciation issues, how do they pronounce:

Microsoft SQL Server
MySQL
PostgreSQL

Cheers,
-J

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
>>> bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?
>> Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
>> acceptable short form should be promoted?
>
> What people? The three or four that I run into once a month? So what...

Google groups shows 148 hits in the last month, including someone
setting up a postgre user community.

To get an un-skewed-by-this-thread number, I also searched for posts in
January. There were 172.

That's a lot more than 3 or 4 a month, even if you assume that 75% are
dups from later messages in the same threads. And it doesn't include the
vastly larger number of people that continue to use the incorrect name
but didn't post to a mailing list or newsgroup.

/D

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

Dave Page wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>>> FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
>>>> bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?
>>> Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
>>> acceptable short form should be promoted?
>> What people? The three or four that I run into once a month? So what...
>
> Google groups shows 148 hits in the last month, including someone
> setting up a postgre user community.
>
> To get an un-skewed-by-this-thread number, I also searched for posts in
> January. There were 172.
>
> That's a lot more than 3 or 4 a month,

Well I did say , "me". I didn't say everyone.


>even if you assume that 75% are
> dups from later messages in the same threads. And it doesn't include the
> vastly larger number of people that continue to use the incorrect name
> but didn't post to a mailing list or newsgroup.

I don't see Postgres eliminating the Postgre problem. If there is even
actually a Postgre problem, which even with your numbers is a really
hard argument to make in consideration of the global scheme of things.

Heck, Robert Treat uses Postgre on irc all the time ;)

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

iD8DBQFG+/ISATb/zqfZUUQRAukOAJ9Og5BUK2+NfFjM9xtsXlw3PNOZIwCgn6kj
9HvaWbYXH2qkFDRilv0DlTk=
=8P18
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thursday 27 September 2007 14:10, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >> Dave Page wrote:
> >>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >>>> FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
> >>>> bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?
> >>>
> >>> Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
> >>> acceptable short form should be promoted?
> >>
> >> What people? The three or four that I run into once a month? So what...
> >
> > Google groups shows 148 hits in the last month, including someone
> > setting up a postgre user community.
> >
> > To get an un-skewed-by-this-thread number, I also searched for posts in
> > January. There were 172.
> >
> > That's a lot more than 3 or 4 a month,
>
> Well I did say , "me". I didn't say everyone.
>
> >even if you assume that 75% are
> > dups from later messages in the same threads. And it doesn't include the
> > vastly larger number of people that continue to use the incorrect name
> > but didn't post to a mailing list or newsgroup.
>
> I don't see Postgres eliminating the Postgre problem. If there is even
> actually a Postgre problem, which even with your numbers is a really
> hard argument to make in consideration of the global scheme of things.
>

Joshua,

Looking at my how to spot a troll guidebook:

1) responds to every post in a thread

from my count Joshua,  you have posted 11 times on this topic today

2) attempts to misdirect the conversation in other directions, away from the
central issue

rename it pg?  yeah, that sidetracked a few people.

3) ignores 3rd party / independent evidence that they don't agree with.

I've posted on multiple occasions about the use of postgre, in community
polls, in analytics data for the website, and in search engine use. Plus I
know that you know David Fetter has a special bot command just to send people
on IRC that come in mentioning postgre.


So, will you please get back to discussing this seriously? I think you have a
valid position, but no one will take it seriously the way you are behaving.
Unless you have already given up, in which case please just stop posting.

PS. I see you just posted again while I was writing this, so that's 12 times.
And it's phpPgAdmin.

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

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

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 27 September 2007 14:10, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Dave Page wrote:
>>> even if you assume that 75% are
>>> dups from later messages in the same threads. And it doesn't include the
>
> Joshua,
>
> Looking at my how to spot a troll guidebook:
>
> 1) responds to every post in a thread
>
> from my count Joshua,  you have posted 11 times on this topic today

I will admit, I have been a bit rabid on this topic. The mistake I made
this morning was to respond to each post in kind (instead of a sum) when
I woke up.

>
> 2) attempts to misdirect the conversation in other directions, away from the
> central issue
>
> rename it pg?  yeah, that sidetracked a few people.

I started a new thread not to sidetrack people, but to insure I didn't
hijack the existing thread.

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

iD8DBQFG+/uMATb/zqfZUUQRAtHxAKCAeh1GhRt/1rV7ia7ijOT/fuxJaQCbBQLh
hFpl7M6GsOUIPIOkMBdGb2A=
=N+Nh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> although I can't recall ever seeing anyone refer to
> it as Postgre, except in this list ... to be totally honest, if I ever *heard*
> anyone refer to it as Postgre...

If you're in sales and bring up a powerpoint that says "PostgreSQL" to
customers you hear 'Postgre SQL' a lot.   If you're in IT and show less
technical executive management a proposal that  says "PostgreSQL" you
hear 'Postgre' a lot.  If you're an entrepreneur showing potential
investors a business plan that says "PostgreSQL" you hear 'why Postgre'
a lot. In none of those situations is it a good use of time to go off
on pronunciation tangents.

To get a feeling for this, show the term to any people you know who aren't
familiar with the project and ask how they would say it.  Another way to get
a feeling for it is to look at a word we're less numb to.   Is "AppleSQL"
pronounced "Apples Q. L" or is "MarCGF" pronounced "Marc G. F."?

On 9/27/07, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> >
> > although I can't recall ever seeing anyone refer to
> > it as Postgre, except in this list ... to be totally honest, if I ever *heard*
> > anyone refer to it as Postgre...
>
> If you're in sales and bring up a powerpoint that says "PostgreSQL" to
> customers you hear 'Postgre SQL' a lot.   If you're in IT and show less
> technical executive management a proposal that  says "PostgreSQL" you
> hear 'Postgre' a lot.  If you're an entrepreneur showing potential
> investors a business plan that says "PostgreSQL" you hear 'why Postgre'
> a lot. In none of those situations is it a good use of time to go off
> on pronunciation tangents.
>
> To get a feeling for this, show the term to any people you know who aren't
> familiar with the project and ask how they would say it.  Another way to get
> a feeling for it is to look at a word we're less numb to.   Is "AppleSQL"
> pronounced "Apples Q. L" or is "MarCGF" pronounced "Marc G. F."?
>

2 pennies from me.

Sounds, text and language differ and this is an international project
and community.
Add to the international flavor by recording the spoken word(s) in a
variety of languages.
Put them on the site.
"Regardless of how you say it, it is the World's Most Advanced Open
Source Database"

Turn this lemon of a thread into lemonade.

Joshua D. Drake escribió:

> No. The goal was to "accept" Postgres as an alternate name. There is
> very clearly a difference between "accepting" something and "promoting"
> something.

Postgres has been accepted as an alternative name for years.

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

Joshua D. Drake escribió:

> > Frankly, the only substantial community claim I've seen against the
> > name change is from several members of the JPUG.
>
> Are we forgetting the french and italians?

They weren't against the name change -- only against changing it all of
a sudden (that's what an Italian guy said at least IIRC).

--
Alvaro Herrera                 http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/CTMLCN8V17R4
"Nadie esta tan esclavizado como el que se cree libre no siendolo" (Goethe)

On 9/27/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Are we forgetting the french and italians?
>
> They weren't against the name change -- only against changing it all of
> a sudden (that's what an Italian guy said at least IIRC).

That's what I recall as well.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation                | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor          | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837                        | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >> FAQ isn't strict technical documentation, and there aliases arn't too
> >> bad. Why do you thing so word Postgres needs any promoting?
> >
> > Isn't it obvious from the number of people calling it Postgre that an
> > acceptable short form should be promoted?
>
> What people? The three or four that I run into once a month? So what...
>
> >
> > Earlier in this round of discussion it seemed that most people didn't
> > like seeing postgre, but we were split on an official name change to
> > Postgres. Doesn't it therefore make sense to leave the official name,
> > and just promote the acceptable short name?
>
> IMO, no. It makes sense to leave the official name and accept the short
> name.

This entire thread reminds me of the concerns I had about advocacy list
focus a few months ago.

I think I will just ignore most posts and return in a few weeks to get a
poll on adding alias usage to the documentation, get a majority (or not),
and move on.

While making the alias additions is a good use of my time, arguing with
some people is not a good use of my time.  I will just take their
negative votes along with the positive votes and move on.

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

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

On 9/28/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> I think I will just ignore most posts and return in a few weeks to get a
> poll on adding alias usage to the documentation, get a majority (or not),
> and move on.
>
> While making the alias additions is a good use of my time, arguing with
> some people is not a good use of my time.  I will just take their
> negative votes along with the positive votes and move on.

Sounds like a good plan.

--
Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation                | fax: 732.331.1301
499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor          | jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
Edison, NJ 08837                        | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 04:26:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> widely used.

Uh, I thought the argument was that "Postgres" was already widely
used, so we should start using it more widely?

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
                --Brad Holland

At least in Brazil lots of people (including me) use "Postgres" all the time.
A agree with the alias argument and also think that it's already widely used.

On 9/28/07, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 04:26:32PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
> > widely used.
>
> Uh, I thought the argument was that "Postgres" was already widely
> used, so we should start using it more widely?
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
> In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
> garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
>                 --Brad Holland
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
>


--
Diogo Biazus - diogob@gmail.com
Móvel Consultoria
http://www.movelinfo.com.br
http://www.postgresql.org.br

On 9/26/2007 6:11 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more than
> one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same could be done
> with the FAQ.

If you are going to change all the documentation anyway, is there a
strong reason not to change it to Postgres all the way?


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 9/26/2007 2:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
>> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
>> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.
>>
>> I don't see why the documentation readers should be the first victims of
>> our differences about product naming.  Technical documentation is the
>> last place where you want to be ambiguous and inconsistent.  If you
>> want to introduce useless randomness, please start somewhere else.
>
> If we agree we should mention our alias "Postgres" more, where do you
> propose we do that?  I suggested the documentation and FAQ.  Do you have
> a better idea?

Apparently nobody agrees at all yet. Interestingly, everyone has dropped
the *absolutely necessary* addition of *Postgre* to the accepted aliases
in case we are not committing to renaming to Postgres.

It is absolutely necessary because there is *no way* the people, who
oppose the name change, even remotely believe for themselves that this
abomination will ever go away by itself. And if they do, they are just
as ignorant as they claim the proponents of the name change would be.
Only that the two camps are ignorant of different things.

So is it okay now that we add Postgre to the list of accepted aliases?


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 9/26/2007 4:35 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Derek Rodner wrote:
>>>> In presentations, articles, blogs, etc. Any publicly visible spot.
>>> This is assuming the name of the project has changed. It hasn't. The
>>> name of this project is PostgreSQL.
>>
>> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
>> widely used.
>
> I am unsure of the importance of this point. The name of the project is
> PostgreSQL, not Postgres. If the alias doesn't get used, who cares.

It seems you care very much for "the alias not getting used".


Jan


>
>>
>>> This whole thread stinks of... I couldn't get my way and change the name
>>> outright so instead I will subvert my will through alternative means...
>>
>> Well, actually, I see it the opposite where you brow-beat folks until
>> you think they will quit.  (I am not a quitter, which I think you know.)
>> And I certainly do think the name change will finally be made, so I
>> don't feel like I have to subvert anything.
>>
>
> Well at least you are honest :) but consider that (I am not a quitter,
> which I think you know.)
>
> So you and I are going to be at this *a long* time.
>
>> I thought it would not be a controversial change because I already
>> stated I wanted to make the alias more visible and no one objected.  Now
>> I have a few objections and a lot of people who think it is a good idea.
>>
>
> If you review the thread it appears that the equation is similar to that
> of the name change... e.g; no clear majority.
>
>> Frankly, if the alias takes hold we might not need to make the full name
>> change -- supressing this idea now might actually hasten the name
>> change.
>
>>> The community "just" accepted the FAQ change, and now you want to start
>>> this?
>>>
>>> Let it lay.
>>
>> Again, why shut down the discussion?
>
> Because.. silence is not approval the longer this thread goes on, the
> more likely it will only be the very few participating. Likely the few
> on core that participate and the few long time contributors such as myself.
>
> Which means, it will never end, and continue to polarize external
> community and people will just give up. That isn't good.
>
> Brow beating is not good. It is negative and counter productive. You
> won't win anything, but you certainly may cause a lot of antagonism (as
> may I with my alternate view).
>
> Note that this may be worth while in the future, but all things come in
> time and I don't think this is the right time.
>
> 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
>
> iD4DBQFG+sKuATb/zqfZUUQRAoetAJdmXVRST0P3oqXcL8Rx1dV78qR7AJ9X9DeR
> YDSuKLmTKTFgwWDSBdunlg==
> =OuF3
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>                http://archives.postgresql.org


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

> ------- Original Message -------
> From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
> To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
> Sent: 29/09/07, 20:03:19
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
>
> So is it okay now that we add Postgre to the list of accepted aliases?

Call me ignorant if you like, but I say no.

/D

On 9/26/2007 5:45 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>>>> But without such changes the alias is only in the FAQ and will not be
>>>>>> widely used.
>>>>> I'm not sure if this has been thought through to the end.  If we make
>>>>> the point that PostgreSQL can also be called Postgres, this does not
>>>>> prevent anyone from calling it Postgre or any other forms that we might
>>>>> not like.  It might in fact make people think that it has various names
>>>>> and you can call it whatever you want.
>>>> Well, they are already calling it "Postgre" without our help, so I see
>>>> us giving them a clear alternative to PostgreSQL as helping avoid
>>>> "Postgre".
>>>>
>>>> But in the end, they can continue calling us whatever they want and we
>>>> can't stop them.
>>> Then why are we bothering trying?
>>
>> Because though we can't _stop_ them, we can certainly influence them.
>> Why are you asking such simplistic questions?
>
> It seemed odd to me. You said, "we can't stop them". So it seems like an
> awful lot of wasted effort to try.

Unless you are in complete denial by now you will have to agree that
Postgre is mostly a side effect of having PostgreSQL as any official
name instead of Postgres. Removing the tumor may not cure in an instant,
but you sure start the healing process doing so.


Jan

>
> 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
>
> iD4DBQFG+tL0ATb/zqfZUUQRAuoBAJsFW25xechDIu1lfsmYsKWYKt672QCXVFLB
> 1THL9o9mWkrRXO0jegHufA==
> =bIPj
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>        subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
>        message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


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

On 9/26/2007 10:34 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
> in the USA and UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6988521.stm). Officially
> imperial units are the standard in both countries with metric units existing
> in parallel. The failure to make the switch is chalked up to the difficulties
> it would impose (sound familiar). The reality is that as an end user I have
> to use and am familiar with metric system. I understand the difficulties
> inherent in change of any sort, but change happens and it is time to get out
> in front of this one.

While the 1866 US legislation officially legalized the metric system
(allowing measurements to be given in metric only and no court shall
rule them illegal), the 1902 legislation failed to force the government
to use metric only *by one vote*.

Funny enough, all the countries I know who actually did changes of that
magnitude had success in the end. And changing to metric is by far not
the largest scale change. Turkey for example switched from arabic
writing to a western style using a latin based alphabet in the late
1920's. It began in May 1928 and although many members of the Turkish
Great National Assembly originally wanted it to be done gradually over 5
years or so, on January 1st, 1929 it became illegal to write Turkish in
arabic letters. Think about it, they made the whole nation illiterate
over night and it worked! The language reform is controversial to this
day and that is, in my opinion, a good thing because it keeps the
heritage alive. But I guess nobody on any side of that multi-dimensional
fence would doubt that the actual cash value of using a latin based
writing system became very clear when Turkey applied to join the
European Community (today known as European Union) in 1947. Of course,
it only took 50 years to actually become a full member of the EU in 1999
... but that only shows that European bureaucracy can well compete with
its American counterpart.

Here we are, 80 years after the Turks demonstrated what can be done and
many members of our PostgreaseQL Great International Assembly think it
is best to do it gradually over 5 years or so. And they make sure that
any possible vote to force otherwise will fail *at least by one*.

Remember: If you make all the same mistakes again, you have a very good
chance that history repeats itself.


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 29/09/2007 22:32, Jan Wieck wrote:

> it only took 50 years to actually become a full member of the EU in 1999

Without meaning to distract from your main point, which is well made,
I'd like to point out that Turkey is still not a full member of the EU -
formal talks between Turkey and the EU with a view to its accession
began a couple of years ago, as I recall, and are likely to continue for
quite a few years yet.

Ray.

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

On 29/09/2007 22:40, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:

> On 29/09/2007 22:32, Jan Wieck wrote:
 >
>> it only took 50 years to actually become a full member of the EU in 1999
>
> Without meaning to distract from your main point, which is well made,
> I'd like to point out that Turkey is still not a full member of the EU -

A quick Google turned up the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union

Ray.

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

On 9/29/2007 3:21 PM, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> ------- Original Message -------
>> From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
>> To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
>> Sent: 29/09/07, 20:03:19
>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
>>
>> So is it okay now that we add Postgre to the list of accepted aliases?
>
> Call me ignorant if you like, but I say no.

Is that a firm "no" or is that this more and more popular "I don't care"
"no"?

I just want to know where the majority stands on Postgre. Because if the
majority says we should not accept it, then I can add some code to the
IRC bot to jump down the throat of ... er ... let me rephrase that ...
politely point out that Postgre is NOT an accepted name of the project,
whenever someone new to the channel is asking a Postgre related
question. And it would also ask for everyone to correct it wherever
there is a chance (I do admit that during the first meeting with a new
customer isn't really a good chance).

But if instead, the majority thinks we should gallantly overlook the use
of Postgre and act as if the person had accidentally made a typing error
meaning Postgres indeed, we defacto do accept Postgre and should
document it that way.

Can't have it both ways.


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 9/29/2007 5:44 PM, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> On 29/09/2007 22:40, Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
>
>> On 29/09/2007 22:32, Jan Wieck wrote:
>  >
>>> it only took 50 years to actually become a full member of the EU in 1999
>>
>> Without meaning to distract from your main point, which is well made,
>> I'd like to point out that Turkey is still not a full member of the EU -
>
> A quick Google turned up the following:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union

Oh, right, in 1999 they were only recognized as candidate for full
membership. Now that is bureaucracy at its finest.

You think we can drag this naming issue longer that they have dragged
this membership? Come on, let's at least try.


Jan

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

Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 9/29/2007 3:21 PM, Dave Page wrote:
>>
>>> ------- Original Message -------
>>> From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
>>> To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
>>> Sent: 29/09/07, 20:03:19
>>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Using Postgres as an alias
>>>
>>> So is it okay now that we add Postgre to the list of accepted aliases?
>>
>> Call me ignorant if you like, but I say no.
>
> Is that a firm "no" or is that this more and more popular "I don't care"
> "no"?

It's a firm 'no'.

For the record, my view is that I find 'postgre' to be particularly ugly
and irritating to see used. I cannot help thinking that it's somewhat
insulting for people to fail in the simple matter of getting the name of
the project we work so hard on correct.

I believe we must do something to discourage its use, however, I don't
particularly mind if that is a wholesale change of our name to
'postgres', or promoting (yes, promoting - not just accepting) it as a
friendly name or alias.

/D

Postgre   -1     (Horrid word)

Postgres   +1   (Already an alias in fact)

On 9/29/2007 7:22 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> - --On Saturday, September 29, 2007 17:47:21 -0400 Jan Wieck
> <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> I just want to know where the majority stands on Postgre. Because if the
>> majority says we should not accept it, then I can add some code to the IRC
>> bot to jump down the throat of ... er ... let me rephrase that ... politely
>> point out that Postgre is NOT an accepted name of the project, whenever
>> someone new to the channel is asking a Postgre related question. And it would
>> also ask for everyone to correct it wherever there is a chance (I do admit
>> that during the first meeting with a new customer isn't really a good chance).
>>
>> But if instead, the majority thinks we should gallantly overlook the use of
>> Postgre and act as if the person had accidentally made a typing error meaning
>> Postgres indeed, we defacto do accept Postgre and should document it that way.
>>
>> Can't have it both ways.
>
> If we want 'rude and ignorant that might push ppl away', go with the former ...
> myself, I'm in the latter group ...

Just because you cannot imagine that correcting someone can be done in a
polite way doesn't mean that insisting on Postgre not being an accepted
alias is necessarily rude and ignorant by definition.


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 9/29/2007 9:47 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> - --On Saturday, September 29, 2007 20:04:02 -0400 Jan Wieck
> <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just because you cannot imagine that correcting someone can be done in a
>> polite way doesn't mean that insisting on Postgre not being an accepted alias
>> is necessarily rude and ignorant by definition.
>
> Sorry, that wasn't what I was implying ... one impression I've gotten from all
> of these threads is that there have been people 'jumping down the throats' of
> ppl using either Postgres or Postgre ... not ppl 'politely correcting', but
> people being overtly rude ...

I know. And I know those people ... I am frequently enough on the IRC
channels to witness it actually happening (although I am not as frequent
on them as I probably should be). Someone may accuse me of being one of
those people, because it depends on my overall mood how much of a jerk I
can be and it also depends on how much people consider jerking being rude.


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



- --On Saturday, September 29, 2007 15:09:26 -0400 Jan Wieck
<JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
wrote:


> It seems you care very much for "the alias not getting used".

I'm in that camp ... but I'm not in the "chastise anyone that uses Postgres or
Postgre" camp ... the official name is 'PostgreSQL', the 'common name(s)' are
Postgres and Postgre (or Pg, or PgSQL, we have several to choose from) ...

Anyone that believes that switching to Postgres is going to get rid of Postgre,
mind you, is severely deluding themselves, IMHO ... its a name that is out
there, those that are using it to reference the project are in the habit of
doing so now, and changing the official name isn't going to change that habit
...

- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG/rYt4QvfyHIvDvMRAiK6AKDfrO7OxIsLGmIUNikhqIl25E2cWQCbBlnj
5OBlM24dLFajhKwMRYvrfAs=
=OQQM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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



- --On Saturday, September 29, 2007 17:47:21 -0400 Jan Wieck
<JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
wrote:


> I just want to know where the majority stands on Postgre. Because if the
> majority says we should not accept it, then I can add some code to the IRC
> bot to jump down the throat of ... er ... let me rephrase that ... politely
> point out that Postgre is NOT an accepted name of the project, whenever
> someone new to the channel is asking a Postgre related question. And it would
> also ask for everyone to correct it wherever there is a chance (I do admit
> that during the first meeting with a new customer isn't really a good chance).
>
> But if instead, the majority thinks we should gallantly overlook the use of
> Postgre and act as if the person had accidentally made a typing error meaning
> Postgres indeed, we defacto do accept Postgre and should document it that way.
>
> Can't have it both ways.

If we want 'rude and ignorant that might push ppl away', go with the former ...
myself, I'm in the latter group ...

- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG/t5D4QvfyHIvDvMRAtn6AKC8Y9K8D960aYp8iVnb00na+BF7SQCg02MZ
8kxAoiK4667h6VLCYPpFgqQ=
=Luhk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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



- --On Saturday, September 29, 2007 20:04:02 -0400 Jan Wieck
<JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Just because you cannot imagine that correcting someone can be done in a
> polite way doesn't mean that insisting on Postgre not being an accepted alias
> is necessarily rude and ignorant by definition.

Sorry, that wasn't what I was implying ... one impression I've gotten from all
of these threads is that there have been people 'jumping down the throats' of
ppl using either Postgres or Postgre ... not ppl 'politely correcting', but
people being overtly rude ...

- ----
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)

iD8DBQFG/wBC4QvfyHIvDvMRApijAJ97WN3BwJoce1GBcfY9MZfPLUPoegCeO0Bj
Zkjns4/ZBLKAhdyanHXrwbc=
=EJu4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sep 29, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
>
> - --On Saturday, September 29, 2007 20:04:02 -0400 Jan Wieck
> <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just because you cannot imagine that correcting someone can be
>> done in a
>> polite way doesn't mean that insisting on Postgre not being an
>> accepted alias
>> is necessarily rude and ignorant by definition.
>
> Sorry, that wasn't what I was implying ... one impression I've
> gotten from all
> of these threads is that there have been people 'jumping down the
> throats' of
> ppl using either Postgres or Postgre ... not ppl 'politely
> correcting', but
> people being overtly rude ...

If someone has a problem and they come to the pg community for help
and the very first thing they get in response to their plea for help is
a "polite correction", that is also rude and unhelpful. If it's the only
answer they get it's even worse.

It doesn't need to be intentionally rude to be rude.

Cheers,
   Steve

On 9/30/2007 11:55 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
> On Sep 29, 2007, at 6:47 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>>
>>
>> - --On Saturday, September 29, 2007 20:04:02 -0400 Jan Wieck
>> <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just because you cannot imagine that correcting someone can be
>>> done in a
>>> polite way doesn't mean that insisting on Postgre not being an
>>> accepted alias
>>> is necessarily rude and ignorant by definition.
>>
>> Sorry, that wasn't what I was implying ... one impression I've
>> gotten from all
>> of these threads is that there have been people 'jumping down the
>> throats' of
>> ppl using either Postgres or Postgre ... not ppl 'politely
>> correcting', but
>> people being overtly rude ...
>
> If someone has a problem and they come to the pg community for help
> and the very first thing they get in response to their plea for help is
> a "polite correction", that is also rude and unhelpful. If it's the only
> answer they get it's even worse.
>
> It doesn't need to be intentionally rude to be rude.

And the whole thing is totally subjective to boot. Someone might find
that rude, someone else appreciates it and a third one couldn't care less.

The same goes in the other direction. One can find Postgre annoying,
someone else doesn't care and if it is called Pigs-Q-L, and a third one
finds it rude and ignorant to ask for help without even bothering so
much as to what the actual project name might be.


Jan

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

Steve Atkins wrote:

> If someone has a problem and they come to the pg community for help
> and the very first thing they get in response to their plea for help is
> a "polite correction", that is also rude and unhelpful. If it's the only
> answer they get it's even worse.

+1!    And NOT only when someone comes to the pg community.

The same applies when customers ask software vendors about products
using Postgre.  And management asking their engineering group about
their use of Postgre.

> It doesn't need to be intentionally rude to be rude.

Even apart from being rude, this "polite correction" is at best a waste of time.

On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:33:38 -0700 David Fetter wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 06:11:52AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > In an attempt to get "Postgres" more widely used, I propose changing
> > "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres" in the documentation when there is more
> > than one mention of "PostgreSQL" in the same paragraph.  The same
> > could be done with the FAQ.
> >
> > Objections?
>
> +1 :)

-1

By the way, David: your last PWN does not even contain one "PostgreSQL"
at all in the text which is written by you. Imho Bruce mentioned something else.

Oh, and thanks for breaking my brand new translation script ;-)


Kind regards

--
                Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
 (Ferenc Mantfeld)

On Sep 27, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 9/27/07, Lukas Kahwe Smith <smith@pooteeweet.org> wrote:
>> gain and again since both sides have people unwilling to give in
>
> Then we are at an impasse ... the battle of wits has begun

This word... I do not think it means what you think it means!
--
Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think I will just ignore most posts and return in a few weeks to
> get a poll on adding alias usage to the documentation, get a majority
> (or not), and move on.

The advocacy list is not the forum to decide what gets written into the
documentation.  If people have qualified opinions on that, join the
docs list.

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