Thread: Changing the name
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 I think it would be a great time to change the name of the project back to "Postgres", and relegate "PostgreSQL" to an official and eternal yet discouraged alias. Why now? * We're going to version 9.0, which indicates big changes * We're going to be more visible than ever in the next year: ** The EU mentioned us by name ** Many people are looking for MySQL alternatives * We're finally "on the radar" and not just a geeky niche database. People outside of tech circles have now heard of it. But they still can't pronounce us. :) I won't rehash all the arguments for and against a name change, but I would like to propose *how* we would do such a thing. The most basic would be to simply issue a statement such as: The PostgreSQL project is changing the official name of the project from "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres". Postgres has been a recognized alias for many years, and is the preferred usage by many in the community. The use of PostgreSQL will still be used in many places, but over time will be replaced by Postgres. Again, both names are acceptable, but Postgres is the preferred usage. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001220959 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAktZvVYACgkQvJuQZxSWSshT8wCgxIWA8e7VkcZ7UYdEv4lStjhZ ev0AnRLcgASjpJ2MWf1jmX2vSRCHHNqH =M88A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > > I think it would be a great time to change the name of the > project back to "Postgres", and relegate "PostgreSQL" to > an official and eternal yet discouraged alias. Why now? > > * We're going to version 9.0, which indicates big changes > > * We're going to be more visible than ever in the next year: > ** The EU mentioned us by name > ** Many people are looking for MySQL alternatives > wow! so now that people knows about us *is* the better time to change the name? why? for keeping people away because they will think that we "are not PostgreSQL but maybe some kind of strange fork called Postgres"? while i prefer the name postgres because it's more easy to pronounce for non native english speakers, i accept it as an official alias... if we change the name we lose history in the mind of people that doesn't know the project so closely to know that this thread appears every often... -- Atentamente, Jaime Casanova Soporte y capacitación de PostgreSQL Asesoría y desarrollo de sistemas Guayaquil - Ecuador Cel. +59387171157
Jaime Casanova <jcasanov@systemguards.com.ec> wrote: > if we change the name we lose history in the mind of people that > doesn't know the project so closely to know that this thread appears > every often... ACK. -1 from me for changing the name. I don't see any requirements to do this. Let us do the work work to improve PostgreSQL, not changing the name of the game ... Andreas -- Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds) "If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown) Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°
2010/1/22 Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com>: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > > I think it would be a great time to change the name of the > project back to "Postgres", and relegate "PostgreSQL" to > an official and eternal yet discouraged alias. Why now? > > * We're going to version 9.0, which indicates big changes > > * We're going to be more visible than ever in the next year: > ** The EU mentioned us by name Quoting the EU: "The EU said: The Commission's investigation showed that another open source database, PostgreSQL, is considered by many database users to be" They say PostgreSQL not Postgres... > ** Many people are looking for MySQL alternatives Yes, and out there... you find PostgreSQL... on google for example: 12.600.000 for "postgresql" about 1.980.000 for "postgres" > * We're finally "on the radar" and not just a geeky niche > database. People outside of tech circles have now heard of it. > But they still can't pronounce us. :) Yes, they can (At least the 90% of the ones i know) and they say Postgre-sql or postgres > I won't rehash all the arguments for and against a name > change, but I would like to propose *how* we would do such > a thing. The most basic would be to simply issue a statement > such as: > > The PostgreSQL project is changing the official name of > the project from "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres". Postgres has > been a recognized alias for many years, and is the preferred > usage by many in the community. The use of PostgreSQL will > still be used in many places, but over time will be replaced > by Postgres. Again, both names are acceptable, but Postgres > is the preferred usage. Is changing the name really something healty for the project? Besides "Letting people be able to say the name correctly", is there any other?... for marketing reasons, i still like PostgreSQL (Anyone who knows what SQL stands for... will associate the name with something database related). Besides, putting effort in this will resurt in less effort for the whole work that is publishing the info for a new release... (Cause you will only not be talking about how good it is... but why the name change)... and the list can grow i gues... so, big -1 for me > - -- > Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com > PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001220959 > http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > iEYEAREDAAYFAktZvVYACgkQvJuQZxSWSshT8wCgxIWA8e7VkcZ7UYdEv4lStjhZ > ev0AnRLcgASjpJ2MWf1jmX2vSRCHHNqH > =M88A > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy >
> Yes, they can (At least the 90% of the ones i know) and they say > Postgre-sql or postgres It's actually Post-gres-QL. I don't have a strong preference between Postgres and PostgreSQL. But it grates on me when people pronounce it Post-gree or Post-gree-SQL. I guess I'm just an irritable sort of guy. http://www.postgresql.org/community/survey.33 Scott
Scott
I think you would be hard pressed to find many who LIKE the name. But it is too deeply entrenched to change it now. I have no doubt that it does have a small negative effect in brand recognition and product takeup. But this would be miniscule when compared to the severe loss of brand awareness if you changed it.
The name was conceived by techies for techies. It’s a mouthful. It’s not catchy; but it has traction.
I usually call it Postgres when speaking about it but use the full name in print. This is no different to Microsoft SQL Server usually being called ‘Sequel Server’. And I’ve heard Josh Berkus call MySQL ‘My Sequel’.
Familial name are common in most language. e.g. I usually get called Rob or Bob, not Robert. (My wife has a few other names for me but are not fit for publication.)
I have no idea what they were thinking when they came up with the elephant. And “The world’s most advanced open source database” is a mouthful.
Let’s face it: From a marketing perspective, we are our own worst enemies. But the fact remains that PostgreSQL is a brilliant product and the only way is up!
So that is my last word on the subject. If it comes up on this forum again, I promise to not make a comment. :)
On 23/1/10 10:25 AM, "Scott Bailey" <artacus@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Yes, they can (At least the 90% of the ones i know) and they say
>> Postgre-sql or postgres
>
> It's actually Post-gres-QL. I don't have a strong preference between
> Postgres and PostgreSQL. But it grates on me when people pronounce it
> Post-gree or Post-gree-SQL. I guess I'm just an irritable sort of guy.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/community/survey.33
>
> Scott
Regards
Rob Napier
I think you would be hard pressed to find many who LIKE the name. But it is too deeply entrenched to change it now. I have no doubt that it does have a small negative effect in brand recognition and product takeup. But this would be miniscule when compared to the severe loss of brand awareness if you changed it.
The name was conceived by techies for techies. It’s a mouthful. It’s not catchy; but it has traction.
I usually call it Postgres when speaking about it but use the full name in print. This is no different to Microsoft SQL Server usually being called ‘Sequel Server’. And I’ve heard Josh Berkus call MySQL ‘My Sequel’.
Familial name are common in most language. e.g. I usually get called Rob or Bob, not Robert. (My wife has a few other names for me but are not fit for publication.)
I have no idea what they were thinking when they came up with the elephant. And “The world’s most advanced open source database” is a mouthful.
Let’s face it: From a marketing perspective, we are our own worst enemies. But the fact remains that PostgreSQL is a brilliant product and the only way is up!
So that is my last word on the subject. If it comes up on this forum again, I promise to not make a comment. :)
On 23/1/10 10:25 AM, "Scott Bailey" <artacus@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Yes, they can (At least the 90% of the ones i know) and they say
>> Postgre-sql or postgres
>
> It's actually Post-gres-QL. I don't have a strong preference between
> Postgres and PostgreSQL. But it grates on me when people pronounce it
> Post-gree or Post-gree-SQL. I guess I'm just an irritable sort of guy.
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/community/survey.33
>
> Scott
Regards
Rob Napier
On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Rob Napier <rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote: > I have no idea what they were thinking when they came up with the elephant. > And “The world’s most advanced open source database” is a mouthful. > > Let’s face it: From a marketing perspective, we are our own worst enemies. You really have no idea what connection an elephant has with a program that stores and recalls data? When it comes to marketing people seem to love to criticize. -- greg
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > I think it would be a great time to change the name of the > project back to "Postgres", and relegate "PostgreSQL" to > an official and eternal yet discouraged alias. +1 (despite what my sig says) -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 00:51 +0000, Greg Stark wrote: > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Rob Napier <rob@doitonce.net.au> wrote: > > I have no idea what they were thinking when they came up with the elephant. > > And “The world’s most advanced open source database” is a mouthful. > > > > Let’s face it: From a marketing perspective, we are our own worst enemies. > > You really have no idea what connection an elephant has with a program > that stores and recalls data? When it comes to marketing people seem > to love to criticize. Actually the elephant is not the marketing problem. It is the Engineers (no offense guys). Marketing PostgreSQL is easy. Joshua D. Drake > > -- > greg > --
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 22:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > > I think it would be a great time to change the name of the > > project back to "Postgres", Back to Postgres? To my knowledge it has never been postgres. There was Postgres95.... > and relegate "PostgreSQL" to > > an official and eternal yet discouraged alias. > Sure, just a copy and paste for me. Of course it would completely destroy the branding identity of several extremely large communities (and non-profits) comprising many people, including one of which you are a Director for. > +1 (despite what my sig says) > If we do this, I will reiterate that PostgreSQL is the project, Postgres is the database. The branding around the name is entirely too important and long lasting at this point. Joshua D. Drake P.S. Do you really want to start this war all over again? > -- > Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. > --
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > +1 (despite what my sig says) > > > > If we do this, I will reiterate that PostgreSQL is the project, Postgres > is the database. The branding around the name is entirely too important > and long lasting at this point. Yea, the idea of have Postgres refer to part of the ecosystem and PostgreSQL another part is a common approach. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Santiago Zarate wrote: > > > > The PostgreSQL project is changing the official name of > > the project from "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres". Postgres has > > been a recognized alias for many years, and is the preferred > > usage by many in the community. The use of PostgreSQL will > > still be used in many places, but over time will be replaced > > by Postgres. Again, both names are acceptable, but Postgres > > is the preferred usage. > > Is changing the name really something healty for the project? Besides > "Letting people be able to say the name correctly", is there any > other?... for marketing reasons, i still like PostgreSQL (Anyone who > knows what SQL stands for... will associate the name with something > database related). Besides, putting effort in this will resurt in less > effort for the whole work that is publishing the info for a new > release... (Cause you will only not be talking about how good it is... > but why the name change)... Yea, the original logic was that adding the QL to Postgres allowed us to be identified as a database. The pronunciation issue did come up, but we never met in person in those days, so we didn't speak the name much. I think most people agree the name PostgreSQL looks better in print, but Postgres is easier to say. If we can find a way to print one but mostly say the other, we would be in good shape. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Yea, the original logic was that adding the QL to Postgres allowed us to > be identified as a database. Actually, PostgreSQL emphasized the switch from the PostQUEL query language that was in the original database to the SQL query language the Andrew/Jolly based their Graduate work on ... they went with Postgres95 as a joke / play on Windows95 ... we changed teh 95 -> QL and capitalized the 'S' to emphasize that we were now an SQL based RDBMS ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Yea, the original logic was that adding the QL to Postgres allowed us to > > be identified as a database. > > Actually, PostgreSQL emphasized the switch from the PostQUEL query > language that was in the original database to the SQL query language the > Andrew/Jolly based their Graduate work on ... they went with Postgres95 as > a joke / play on Windows95 ... we changed teh 95 -> QL and capitalized the > 'S' to emphasize that we were now an SQL based RDBMS ... Oh, yea, I had forgotten that. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
* Joshua D. Drake: > Of course it would completely destroy the branding identity of several > extremely large communities (and non-profits) comprising many people, > including one of which you are a Director for. There's also the cost of renaming packages in distributions.
> The PostgreSQL project is changing the official name of > the project from "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres". Postgres has > been a recognized alias for many years, and is the preferred > usage by many in the community. The use of PostgreSQL will > still be used in many places, but over time will be replaced > by Postgres. Again, both names are acceptable, but Postgres > is the preferred usage. Nice attempt at a compromise. However, it ignores several points around a name change: (1) JPUG, our single largest user community representing at least 25% of PostgreSQL users worldwide, opposes a name change. (2) "Postgres" is really not that much better of a name. WTF does it mean? If we're renaming, how about "AdvancedDB"? "AllYouEverNeedDB"? Or "EnterpriseDB"? Oh, wait. ;-) (3) Our project continually suffers from insufficient volunteer effort for marketing to do simple nuts-and-bolts things with proven ability to improve adoption: website overhaul, case studies, howto guides, news articles, blogs. Where are we going to get the time to do the kind of marketing campaign a name change requires? "I have a regex" doesn't cut it. (4) When Neil said back before 8.0 that it was our last chance to change the name, he was right. And we determined we couldn't do it without holding up the release. I still stand by that decision. --Josh Berkus
The original project at UCB was called Postgres. Andrew and Jolly finalized the project and called it postges95 and then turned it over to the open source group. --elein On Jan 22, 2010, at 7:46 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 22:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: >> >>> I think it would be a great time to change the name of the >>> project back to "Postgres", > > Back to Postgres? To my knowledge it has never been postgres. There was > Postgres95.... > >> and relegate "PostgreSQL" to >>> an official and eternal yet discouraged alias. >> > > Sure, just a copy and paste for me. > > > Of course it would completely destroy the branding identity of several > extremely large communities (and non-profits) comprising many people, > including one of which you are a Director for. > > >> +1 (despite what my sig says) >> > > If we do this, I will reiterate that PostgreSQL is the project, Postgres > is the database. The branding around the name is entirely too important > and long lasting at this point. > > Joshua D. Drake > > > P.S. Do you really want to start this war all over again? > >> -- >> Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ >> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. >> > > > -- > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy > elein elein@varlena.com
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 10:03 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > The PostgreSQL project is changing the official name of > > the project from "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres". Postgres has > > been a recognized alias for many years, and is the preferred > > usage by many in the community. The use of PostgreSQL will > > still be used in many places, but over time will be replaced > > by Postgres. Again, both names are acceptable, but Postgres > > is the preferred usage. > > Nice attempt at a compromise. However, it ignores several points around > a name change: > > (1) JPUG, our single largest user community representing at least 25% of > PostgreSQL users worldwide, opposes a name change. > > (2) "Postgres" is really not that much better of a name. WTF does it > mean? If we're renaming, how about "AdvancedDB"? "AllYouEverNeedDB"? Or > "EnterpriseDB"? Oh, wait. ;-) > > (3) Our project continually suffers from insufficient volunteer effort > for marketing to do simple nuts-and-bolts things with proven ability to > improve adoption: website overhaul, case studies, howto guides, news > articles, blogs. Where are we going to get the time to do the kind of > marketing campaign a name change requires? "I have a regex" doesn't cut it. > > (4) When Neil said back before 8.0 that it was our last chance to change > the name, he was right. And we determined we couldn't do it without > holding up the release. I still stand by that decision. Further: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ProjectName > > --Josh Berkus > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 10:03 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > The PostgreSQL project is changing the official name of > > the project from "PostgreSQL" to "Postgres". Postgres has > > been a recognized alias for many years, and is the preferred > > usage by many in the community. The use of PostgreSQL will > > still be used in many places, but over time will be replaced > > by Postgres. Again, both names are acceptable, but Postgres > > is the preferred usage. > > Nice attempt at a compromise. However, it ignores several points around > a name change: > > (1) JPUG, our single largest user community representing at least 25% of > PostgreSQL users worldwide, opposes a name change. > > (2) "Postgres" is really not that much better of a name. WTF does it > mean? If we're renaming, how about "AdvancedDB"? "AllYouEverNeedDB"? Or > "EnterpriseDB"? Oh, wait. ;-) > > (3) Our project continually suffers from insufficient volunteer effort > for marketing to do simple nuts-and-bolts things with proven ability to > improve adoption: website overhaul, case studies, howto guides, news > articles, blogs. Where are we going to get the time to do the kind of > marketing campaign a name change requires? "I have a regex" doesn't cut it. > > (4) When Neil said back before 8.0 that it was our last chance to change > the name, he was right. And we determined we couldn't do it without > holding up the release. I still stand by that decision. Further: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/ProjectName > > --Josh Berkus > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > wow! so now that people knows about us *is* the better time to change the name? > why? for keeping people away because they will think that we "are not > PostgreSQL but maybe some kind of strange fork called Postgres"? Um...it's already *very* widely known as Postgres. I don't think anyone out there considers Postgres a "fork" of PostgreSQL. (although it's tempting at times to create one :) > while i prefer the name postgres because it's more easy to pronounce > for non native english speakers Right. For English speakers as well. > if we change the name we lose history in the mind of people that > doesn't know the project so closely to know that this thread appears > every often... I'm not sure what you mean by this - people would not make the association of Postgres <=> PostgreSQL, an already very strong link? - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001261041 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAktfDUcACgkQvJuQZxSWSsg4OQCcDrUDeXNTzfM8xAp75ZJCMwD3 EzwAnjwPBug1JmnqCPpiCYfjG1IVrY0x =rHRE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > Nice attempt at a compromise. Thanks! :) > However, it ignores several points around a name change: > (1) JPUG, our single largest user community representing at least 25% of > PostgreSQL users worldwide, opposes a name change. This is not exactly true. Please see the archives. There's also no reason they can't use "PostgreSQL" as long as they like, and change when/if they are ready. Just like some people, groups, and companies use "Postgres" now. > (2) "Postgres" is really not that much better of a name. WTF does it > mean? If we're renaming, how about "AdvancedDB"? "AllYouEverNeedDB"? Or > "EnterpriseDB"? Oh, wait. ;-) It doesn't have to "mean" anything. The problem is that PostgreSQL is an ugly, geeky, unpronounceable, untranslatable mess. It's actually to our advantage to not have it mean anything. Google "firebird" for Exhibit A. (Oh and Googling "postgres" vs "postgresql" is meaningless - both have postgresql.org as the top hit, so Google already handles the alias) > (3) Our project continually suffers from insufficient volunteer effort > for marketing to do simple nuts-and-bolts things with proven ability to > improve adoption: website overhaul, case studies, howto guides, news > articles, blogs. Where are we going to get the time to do the kind of > marketing campaign a name change requires? "I have a regex" doesn't cut it. I don't know why a "marketing campaign" is needed. Simply a statement that we're switching the official and alias names around, then we can slowly and gradually change things. > (4) When Neil said back before 8.0 that it was our last chance to change > the name, he was right. And we determined we couldn't do it without > holding up the release. I still stand by that decision. Well, I think it's kind of sticking our heads in the ground to just say "it's too late!" That argument has ben raised before, and the only thing people agree upon is that it will be harder the longer we wait. Here's an idea: if I go a month without seeing "Postgre" or "PostgresSQL", or having someone ask me how to pronounce it, I'll stop asking people to make the change. :) - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001261052 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAktfEZkACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjuAgCgmU69GDsI7Cfah+3qfY4aYffR rAEAoIa5hSNP8r9yPSmvpM7WMGeBmnj5 =YC8h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Well, I think it's kind of sticking our heads in the ground to just say > "it's too late!" That argument has ben raised before, and the only thing > people agree upon is that it will be harder the longer we wait. > > Here's an idea: if I go a month without seeing "Postgre" or "PostgresSQL", > or having someone ask me how to pronounce it, I'll stop asking people > to make the change. :) > Or, you could accept it isn't going to happen. Core has already made the announcement that it isn't going to happen. The reality is there is a huge community that is perfectly happy with our geeky name. There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from using the term Postgres. EDB has already rebranded all their products to use it and it has affected our ability to continue as a thriving project. If you want to use the term postgres, do so. I use them interchangeably. And to be frank... PostgreSQL is a killer name. Why? Because it is an instant conversation starter... I can't count how many times I have had a conversation with someone, told them what I do and then have to explain what it is just because the name is difficult to pronounce. In short, the "problems" we have with the name are semantic. When used strategically it rocks. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
2010/1/26 Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>
Or, you could accept it isn't going to happen. Core has already made the
> Well, I think it's kind of sticking our heads in the ground to just say
> "it's too late!" That argument has ben raised before, and the only thing
> people agree upon is that it will be harder the longer we wait.
>
> Here's an idea: if I go a month without seeing "Postgre" or "PostgresSQL",
> or having someone ask me how to pronounce it, I'll stop asking people
> to make the change. :)
>
announcement that it isn't going to happen. The reality is there is a
huge community that is perfectly happy with our geeky name. There is
nothing stopping you or anyone else from using the term Postgres.
EDB has already rebranded all their products to use it and it has
affected our ability to continue as a thriving project.
If you want to use the term postgres, do so. I use them interchangeably.
And to be frank... PostgreSQL is a killer name. Why? Because it is an
instant conversation starter... I can't count how many times I have had
a conversation with someone, told them what I do and then have to
explain what it is just because the name is difficult to pronounce.
In short, the "problems" we have with the name are semantic. When used
strategically it rocks.
Joshua D. Drake
Plus it has "SQL" in the name, to counter MySQL, Microsoft SQL Server, SQLite. When someone sees the name Firebird, they might think of a cross between Firefox and Thunderbird (and Firefox was originally called Firebird), or the name of an old games company. FileMaker... wtf? Ingres... wtf2? Informix Dynamic Server... what's that supposed to be then?
The current name tells you what sort of software it is. Postgres on its own tells you nothing, and I don't think the "brand" is strong enough to stand by that name. It doesn't sound like a competitor to any other SQL database otherwise, and I see more cons than pros accompanying a name change.
Thom
The current name tells you what sort of software it is. Postgres on its own tells you nothing, and I don't think the "brand" is strong enough to stand by that name. It doesn't sound like a competitor to any other SQL database otherwise, and I see more cons than pros accompanying a name change.
Thom
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: [ There is text before PGP section. ] > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > > > wow! so now that people knows about us *is* the better time to change the name? > > why? for keeping people away because they will think that we "are not > > PostgreSQL but maybe some kind of strange fork called Postgres"? > > Um...it's already *very* widely known as Postgres. I don't think > anyone out there considers Postgres a "fork" of PostgreSQL. (although > it's tempting at times to create one :) Yea, I have been quite happy the Postgres "alias" has taken hold --- it solves some of our problems. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > Nice attempt at a compromise. > > Thanks! :) > > > However, it ignores several points around a name change: > > > (1) JPUG, our single largest user community representing at least 25% of > > PostgreSQL users worldwide, opposes a name change. > > This is not exactly true. Please see the archives. There's also no reason > they can't use "PostgreSQL" as long as they like, and change when/if they > are ready. Just like some people, groups, and companies use "Postgres" now. > > > (2) "Postgres" is really not that much better of a name. WTF does it > > mean? If we're renaming, how about "AdvancedDB"? "AllYouEverNeedDB"? Or > > "EnterpriseDB"? Oh, wait. ;-) > > It doesn't have to "mean" anything. The problem is that PostgreSQL is an > ugly, geeky, unpronounceable, untranslatable mess. It's actually to our > advantage to not have it mean anything. Google "firebird" for Exhibit A. > (Oh and Googling "postgres" vs "postgresql" is meaningless - both have > postgresql.org as the top hit, so Google already handles the alias) What would be interesting would be to name part of the project 'Postgres'. Right now the database superuser is 'postgres', and no one seems to be confused by that. I think we have enough people who like both names that we should be able to come up with a compromise that everyone likes. I am not sure what parts of the project we could name "Postgres" instead of "PostgreSQL". -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Thom Brown wrote: > > instant conversation starter... I can't count how many times I have had > > a conversation with someone, told them what I do and then have to > > explain what it is just because the name is difficult to pronounce. > > > > In short, the "problems" we have with the name are semantic. When used > > strategically it rocks. > > > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > Plus it has "SQL" in the name, to counter MySQL, Microsoft SQL Server, > SQLite. When someone sees the name Firebird, they might think of a cross > between Firefox and Thunderbird (and Firefox was originally called > Firebird), or the name of an old games company. FileMaker... wtf? > Ingres... wtf2? Informix Dynamic Server... what's that supposed to be then? Yes, don't get me started with Microsoft SQL Server. How do you even Google for that effectively, set aside the confusion in conversation? The "SQL" suffix does help us here. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
> What would be interesting would be to name part of the project > 'Postgres'. Right now the database superuser is 'postgres', and no one > seems to be confused by that. I think we have enough people who like > both names that we should be able to come up with a compromise that > everyone likes. I am not sure what parts of the project we could name > "Postgres" instead of "PostgreSQL". FWIW, I'm considering doing a lot of the shilling for 9.0 as "Postgres 9". It looks better on a t-shirt design. So I fully support exploiting the alias. I just think that a change of the official name of the project is too much trouble and does not provide clear marketing gains the way, say, doing more case studies would. Currently it appears that Greg is the only one who really cares about a name change; other people seem to be OK with the whole "official nickname" concept. So, time to drop this again I think. Greg can bring it up again for 10.0. ;-) --Josh
On 01/26/2010 11:15 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> What would be interesting would be to name part of the project >> 'Postgres'. Right now the database superuser is 'postgres', and no one >> seems to be confused by that. I think we have enough people who like >> both names that we should be able to come up with a compromise that >> everyone likes. I am not sure what parts of the project we could name >> "Postgres" instead of "PostgreSQL". > > FWIW, I'm considering doing a lot of the shilling for 9.0 as "Postgres > 9". It looks better on a t-shirt design. So I fully support exploiting > the alias. I just think that a change of the official name of the > project is too much trouble and does not provide clear marketing gains > the way, say, doing more case studies would. > > Currently it appears that Greg is the only one who really cares about a > name change; other people seem to be OK with the whole "official > nickname" concept. So, time to drop this again I think. Greg can bring > it up again for 10.0. ;-) For the record I support the name change and care about it. The issue is that the last we went around on this the people who supported the change where shunted to another list. My guess is that this has more to do with lack of response then lack of interest in change. > > --Josh > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > Currently it appears that Greg is the only one who really cares about a > name change; other people seem to be OK with the whole "official > nickname" concept. So, time to drop this again I think. Greg can bring > it up again for 10.0. ;-) One outcome of this whole discussion is that this Greg is pondering adopting "postgresql" in conversation just out of spite -- which he was always too lazy to do previously. -- greg
Adrian Klaver escribió: > On 01/26/2010 11:15 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >Currently it appears that Greg is the only one who really cares about a > >name change; other people seem to be OK with the whole "official > >nickname" concept. So, time to drop this again I think. Greg can bring > >it up again for 10.0. ;-) > > For the record I support the name change and care about it. Me too. (And then there's Pavan's tagline.) Perhaps the way to start is to order all new swag with the "Postgres" name on it. In a couple of years we could simply change the official name, which no one would recognize anymore. -- Alvaro Herrera
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > And to be frank... PostgreSQL is a killer name. Why? Because it is an > instant conversation starter... I can't count how many times I have had > a conversation with someone, told them what I do and then have to > explain what it is just because the name is difficult to pronounce. Whenever I mention "Postgres" I am already into that territory. I don't need to spell out the QL bit. -- Alvaro Herrera
2010/1/27 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>: >> everyone likes. I am not sure what parts of the project we could name >> "Postgres" instead of "PostgreSQL". > FWIW, I'm considering doing a lot of the shilling for 9.0 as "Postgres > 9". It looks better on a t-shirt design. So I fully support exploiting > the alias. I just think that a change of the official name of the > project is too much trouble and does not provide clear marketing gains > the way, say, doing more case studies would. Which is a good idea, specially in light of the fact that someone who talked to you at linuxconf in Wellington came back talking about Postgre-see-quell :D Cheers, Andrej -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 >> Here's an idea: if I go a month without seeing "Postgre" or "PostgresSQL", >> or having someone ask me how to pronounce it, I'll stop asking people >> to make the change. :) > Or, you could accept it isn't going to happen. Core has already made the > announcement that it isn't going to happen. The reality is there is a > huge community that is perfectly happy with our geeky name. There is > nothing stopping you or anyone else from using the term Postgres. Well, I don't happen to agree. First, Core is heavily divided on the issue, just like the community is. Frankly, based on previous threads and talking with people at conferences, I'd say the majority realize its a bad name and would support the change (as long as it was done in a careful and measured way) (P.S. what's with all the "changing the name will destroy companies and organizations" FUD?) > EDB has already rebranded all their products to use it and it has > affected our ability to continue as a thriving project. It has? News to me. > If you want to use the term postgres, do so. I use them interchangeably. As do I. But that's not the issue. > And to be frank... PostgreSQL is a killer name. Why? Because it is an > instant conversation starter... I can't count how many times I have had > a conversation with someone, told them what I do and then have to > explain what it is just because the name is difficult to pronounce. Are you kidding me? You're trying to say our unpronounceability is a *good* thing? That's funny. I have no problem starting a conversation using "Postgres" alone - it's not a common English word. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201001261509 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAktfTDEACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgzugCgqOY/XWxKNuGhzzvT6qjEDPwX DfgAoPaFZAXon/cvS0KMt81x3f7YCOmS =2Q8e -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2010/1/26 Andrej <andrej.groups@gmail.com>: > 2010/1/27 Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>: > >>> everyone likes. I am not sure what parts of the project we could name >>> "Postgres" instead of "PostgreSQL". >> FWIW, I'm considering doing a lot of the shilling for 9.0 as "Postgres >> 9". It looks better on a t-shirt design. So I fully support exploiting >> the alias. I just think that a change of the official name of the >> project is too much trouble and does not provide clear marketing gains >> the way, say, doing more case studies would. > Which is a good idea, specially in light of the fact that someone > who talked to you at linuxconf in Wellington came back talking > about Postgre-see-quell :D That's just Berkus' own personal fork of the project. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Greg Stark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > > Currently it appears that Greg is the only one who really cares about a > > name change; other people seem to be OK with the whole "official > > nickname" concept. ?So, time to drop this again I think. ?Greg can bring > > it up again for 10.0. ?;-) > > One outcome of this whole discussion is that this Greg is pondering > adopting "postgresql" in conversation just out of spite -- which he > was always too lazy to do previously. "Postgreee" is spite. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: > >> Or, you could accept it isn't going to happen. Core has already made the >> announcement that it isn't going to happen. No. -core discussed the matter in private and we agreed as a group not to change the name when it became blatantly obvious that the community at large would be arguing about it indefinitely. Now can we please quit this distracting thread and concentrate on 9.0? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
dpage@pgadmin.org (Dave Page) writes: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:10 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> wrote: >> >>> Or, you could accept it isn't going to happen. Core has already made the >>> announcement that it isn't going to happen. > > No. -core discussed the matter in private and we agreed as a group not > to change the name when it became blatantly obvious that the community > at large would be arguing about it indefinitely. > > Now can we please quit this distracting thread and concentrate on 9.0? ... But I thought it was supposed to be 8.5??? I already bought a license plate for my car ;-) [wham, wham, wham, wham!!!!] -- "cbbrowne","@","ca.afilias.info" Christopher Browne "Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock phasers on the Heffalump, Piglet, meet me in transporter room three"
On Tuesday 26 January 2010 11:04:32 am Bruce Momjian wrote: > Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > > Nice attempt at a compromise. > > > > Thanks! :) > > > > > However, it ignores several points around a name change: > > > > > > (1) JPUG, our single largest user community representing at least 25% > > > of PostgreSQL users worldwide, opposes a name change. > > > > This is not exactly true. Please see the archives. There's also no reason > > they can't use "PostgreSQL" as long as they like, and change when/if they > > are ready. Just like some people, groups, and companies use "Postgres" > > now. > > > > > (2) "Postgres" is really not that much better of a name. WTF does it > > > mean? If we're renaming, how about "AdvancedDB"? "AllYouEverNeedDB"? > > > Or "EnterpriseDB"? Oh, wait. ;-) > > > > It doesn't have to "mean" anything. The problem is that PostgreSQL is an > > ugly, geeky, unpronounceable, untranslatable mess. It's actually to our > > advantage to not have it mean anything. Google "firebird" for Exhibit A. > > (Oh and Googling "postgres" vs "postgresql" is meaningless - both have > > postgresql.org as the top hit, so Google already handles the alias) > > What would be interesting would be to name part of the project > 'Postgres'. Right now the database superuser is 'postgres', and no one > seems to be confused by that. I think we have enough people who like > both names that we should be able to come up with a compromise that > everyone likes. I am not sure what parts of the project we could name > "Postgres" instead of "PostgreSQL". The more I thought about this, the more I realized it was a good idea, but backwards. There is an community of software growing up around the database, Slony, Bucardo, PostGIS, etc. It would make sense to differentiate the community from the database itself. Have the community as Postgres and the database as PostgreSQL. > > -- > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@gmail.com
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Greg Stark wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: >> Currently it appears that Greg is the only one who really cares about a >> name change; other people seem to be OK with the whole "official >> nickname" concept. So, time to drop this again I think. Greg can bring >> it up again for 10.0. ;-) > > One outcome of this whole discussion is that this Greg is pondering > adopting "postgresql" in conversation just out of spite -- which he > was always too lazy to do previously. I've never referred to it as Postgres myself, always (written and spoken) as PostgreSQL *shrug* Never really found it that big a problem to pronounce ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy@hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy@hub.org
> Well, I think it's kind of sticking our heads in the ground to just say > "it's too late!" That argument has ben raised before, and the only thing > people agree upon is that it will be harder the longer we wait. > > Here's an idea: if I go a month without seeing "Postgre" or "PostgresSQL", > or having someone ask me how to pronounce it, I'll stop asking people > to make the change. :) > Or, you could accept it isn't going to happen. Core has already made the announcement that it isn't going to happen. The reality is there is a huge community that is perfectly happy with our geeky name. There is nothing stopping you or anyone else from using the term Postgres. EDB has already rebranded all their products to use it and it has affected our ability to continue as a thriving project. If you want to use the term postgres, do so. I use them interchangeably. And to be frank... PostgreSQL is a killer name. Why? Because it is an instant conversation starter... I can't count how many times I have had a conversation with someone, told them what I do and then have to explain what it is just because the name is difficult to pronounce. In short, the "problems" we have with the name are semantic. When used strategically it rocks. Joshua D. Drake -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Greg Stark wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote: > >> Currently it appears that Greg is the only one who really cares about a > >> name change; other people seem to be OK with the whole "official > >> nickname" concept. ?So, time to drop this again I think. ?Greg can bring > >> it up again for 10.0. ?;-) > > > > One outcome of this whole discussion is that this Greg is pondering > > adopting "postgresql" in conversation just out of spite -- which he > > was always too lazy to do previously. > > I've never referred to it as Postgres myself, always (written and spoken) > as PostgreSQL *shrug* Never really found it that big a problem to > pronounce ... Uh, it is a bigger problem for people who regularly hear new people talking about it at conferences. It was a wake-up call for me when I first started traveling. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Uh, it is a bigger problem for people who regularly hear new people > talking about it at conferences. It was a wake-up call for me when I > first started traveling. It continues to be a problem for new people to the project. They are reluctant to say the name until they hear someone else "in the know" say it because of how embarrassing it is to be corrected. We could change it to "PostSQL" and really confuse all the NoSQL people. Just kidding! :) -selena -- http://chesnok.com/daily - me http://endpoint.com - work
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 15:00 +0000, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > > I think it would be a great time to change the name of the > project back to "Postgres", and relegate "PostgreSQL" to > an official and eternal yet discouraged alias. Will PostgreSQL be more "popular", or say, will double its users when we change our name to Postgres? Will we have more reviewers? etc, etc. ...and Postgres has zero meaning to me. It may be meaningful to the people who developed/used it between 1886 and 1994, or to the people who are reading history.html in the docs. As written before, our superuser name, server process name and empty database name is already postgres, and it is enough. As Joshua pointed out yesterday, Postgres is being heavily used by EnterpriseDB, which I find dangerous to use in the open-source project just because of that. It is like suggesting to use Mammoth instead of PostgreSQL. ... hey, is your real intention is to use planetpostgres.org instead of planetpostgresql.org ? :-) (kidding) -- Devrim GÜNDÜZ, RHCE Command Prompt - http://www.CommandPrompt.com devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
Attachment
Selena Deckelmann wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > >> Uh, it is a bigger problem for people who regularly hear new people >> talking about it at conferences. It was a wake-up call for me when I >> first started traveling. > > It continues to be a problem for new people to the project. They are > reluctant to say the name until they hear someone else "in the know" > say it because of how embarrassing it is to be corrected. > > We could change it to "PostSQL" and really confuse all the NoSQL people. > > Just kidding! :) > > -selena I think you are on to something! How about... wait for it... YeSQL Then folks could mispronounce it yeee-S-Q-L or yee-se-kwel and perhaps even just yee. Sound very olde English and authoritative. Scott
> Then folks could mispronounce it yeee-S-Q-L or yee-se-kwel and perhaps even > just yee. Sound very olde English and authoritative. OldeSQL? Or for a more American connotation, how about NewWorldSQL? -- ----- http://www.globalherald.net/jb01 GlobalHerald.NET, the Smarter Social Network! (tm)
Scott Bailey wrote: > > We could change it to "PostSQL" and really confuse all the NoSQL people. > > > > Just kidding! :) > > > > -selena > > I think you are on to something! How about... wait for it... > > YeSQL > > Then folks could mispronounce it yeee-S-Q-L or yee-se-kwel and perhaps > even just yee. Sound very olde English and authoritative. In a similar vein, I did jokingly suggest to EnterpriseDB to name their product "Postgres PluSQL". -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 13:31 -0500, Joshua Kramer wrote: > > Then folks could mispronounce it yeee-S-Q-L or yee-se-kwel and perhaps even > > just yee. Sound very olde English and authoritative. > > OldeSQL? Or for a more American connotation, how about NewWorldSQL? > YankSQL > -- > > ----- > http://www.globalherald.net/jb01 > GlobalHerald.NET, the Smarter Social Network! (tm) > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.
Joshua Kramer wrote: > >> Then folks could mispronounce it yeee-S-Q-L or yee-se-kwel and perhaps >> even just yee. Sound very olde English and authoritative. > > OldeSQL? Or for a more American connotation, how about NewWorldSQL? > Joining with the slogan thread. OldeSQL: Not your grandfather's RDBMS But no, then we'd have to split into factions by geography. Folks think we should be emphasizing the universality of Postgres, so how about: UniSQL - and we could actually pronounce it like bike clowns ride. And it would make for some great slogans as well. UniSQL: The greatest database in the Universe UniSQL: Like the bike, only easy to get going hard to fall off UniSQL: The preferred database of World Domination professionals UniSQL: The official database of the New World Order The last one may get us sued by George Bush and company. Scott
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 13:31 -0500, Joshua Kramer wrote: > > Then folks could mispronounce it yeee-S-Q-L or yee-se-kwel and perhaps even > > just yee. Sound very olde English and authoritative. > > OldeSQL? Or for a more American connotation, how about NewWorldSQL? > YankSQL > -- > > ----- > http://www.globalherald.net/jb01 > GlobalHerald.NET, the Smarter Social Network! (tm) > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.