Thread: AW: How Do You Pronounce "PostgreSQL"?
> In my personal experience, out in the real world, people refer to it as > "Postgres". The QL being a mouthful, and contrary to the common practice > of pronouncing SQL as SEQUEL. While Marc points out that technically > Postgres died when it left Berkeley, that discontinuity is really only > something we choose to acknowledge. As Henry points out, SQL > is only one > feature that happened to be added. Apart from not owning the domain > name, why shouldn't it just be "Postgres"? Everybody I know also still sais "Postgres", leaving out the Q L becaus it is too long. In german we would not have the "sequel" problem, since we pronounce it "ess ku ell". I think they all know that they are really referring to PostgreSQL. Guess what you find under www.postgres.com ? Yes, it is Great Bridge. postgresql.com is taken by some Korean domain grabber. BTW Marc, I would make www.postgres.org point to postgresql. Andreas
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote: > > > In my personal experience, out in the real world, people refer to it as > > "Postgres". The QL being a mouthful, and contrary to the common practice > > of pronouncing SQL as SEQUEL. While Marc points out that technically > > Postgres died when it left Berkeley, that discontinuity is really only > > something we choose to acknowledge. As Henry points out, SQL > > is only one > > feature that happened to be added. Apart from not owning the domain > > name, why shouldn't it just be "Postgres"? > > Everybody I know also still sais "Postgres", leaving out the Q L > becaus it is too long. In german we would not have the "sequel" problem, > since we pronounce it "ess ku ell". I think they all know that they are > really > referring to PostgreSQL. > > Guess what you find under www.postgres.com ? Yes, it is Great Bridge. > postgresql.com is taken by some Korean domain grabber. > > BTW Marc, I would make www.postgres.org point to postgresql. Not our domain to point ... it too belongs to Great Bridge ...
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > Guess what you find under www.postgres.com ? Yes, it is Great Bridge. > > postgresql.com is taken by some Korean domain grabber. > > > > BTW Marc, I would make www.postgres.org point to postgresql. > > Not our domain to point ... it too belongs to Great Bridge ... That's interesting, when did GreatBridge acquire them? In my opinion, we should change the name to Postgres, and get GreatBridge to donate the .org domain to the opensource project. That's good for Greatbridge because they own the .com which would actually then become useful. It's good for the free project because people are calling it postgres anyway and it's a better brand name.
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> > > Guess what you find under www.postgres.com ? Yes, it is Great Bridge.
> > > postgresql.com is taken by some Korean domain grabber.
> > >
> > > BTW Marc, I would make www.postgres.org point to postgresql.
> >
> > Not our domain to point ... it too belongs to Great Bridge ...
>
> That's interesting, when did GreatBridge acquire them?
>
> In my opinion, we should change the name to Postgres, and get
> GreatBridge to donate the .org domain to the opensource project. That's
> good for Greatbridge because they own the .com which would actually then
> become useful. It's good for the free project because people are calling
> it postgres anyway and it's a better brand name.
Just because ppl are referring to the project by the wrong name doesn't
make it right ... just because MySQL changes their name to MaxSQL, are you
going to accept them any differently?
Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > Just because ppl are referring to the project by the wrong name doesn't > make it right... Which do you prefer? To be the only one who is right, when everyone else is wrong. Or to change the definition of right so that the software is universally called by its correct name?
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote: > The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > Just because ppl are referring to the project by the wrong name doesn't > > make it right... > > Which do you prefer? To be the only one who is right, when everyone else > is wrong. Or to change the definition of right so that the software is > universally called by its correct name? > Hmmm. Let's make a little table, shall we? Proper name Nickname ----------- -------- Chevrolet Chevy PostgreSQL Postgres Christopher Chris Marcus Marc Robert Bob Richard Rick Since I don't see Chevrolet changing their name to Chevy just because everyone calls it that, or Christopher Chris, Marcus Marc, Robert Bob, etc. why do you feel it necessary to change PostgreSQL to Postgres? Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/moat Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber wrote: > Hmmm. Let's make a little table, shall we? > > Proper name Nickname > ----------- -------- > Chevrolet Chevy > PostgreSQL Postgres > Christopher Chris > Marcus Marc > Robert Bob > Richard Rick > > Since I don't see Chevrolet changing their name to Chevy just because > everyone calls it that, or Christopher Chris, Marcus Marc, Robert Bob, > etc. why do you feel it necessary to change PostgreSQL to Postgres? I would be far overstating my case to say it is "necessary". Only putting forward an opinion that it is desirable. The current release of PostgreSQL is 7.0. In reality it is release 3.0, the four releases prior to that were known as Postgres. I don't see the name change as having been desirable. For Christopher -> Chris, I must say that this is one aspect I dislike about my own name. I have deliberately chosen names for my own children which are unlikely to require an abbreviation. I could also draw up my own table of abbreviations which have become so ubiquitous that the original names are all but forgotten. In fact one could go through the dictionary and point out many of the words as having arisen from an abbreviation of a longer expression.
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Chris wrote: > Vince Vielhaber wrote: > > Hmmm. Let's make a little table, shall we? > > > > Proper name Nickname > > ----------- -------- > > Chevrolet Chevy > > PostgreSQL Postgres > > Christopher Chris > > Marcus Marc > > Robert Bob > > Richard Rick > > > > Since I don't see Chevrolet changing their name to Chevy just because > > everyone calls it that, or Christopher Chris, Marcus Marc, Robert Bob, > > etc. why do you feel it necessary to change PostgreSQL to Postgres? > > I would be far overstating my case to say it is "necessary". Only > putting forward an opinion that it is desirable. > > The current release of PostgreSQL is 7.0. In reality it is release 3.0, > the four releases prior to that were known as Postgres. I don't see the > name change as having been desirable. Huh? v1.09 was Postgres95, v2.x (our v6.x) was PostgreSQL, and that was over 4 years ago ...
> > The current release of PostgreSQL is 7.0. In reality it is release 3.0, > > the four releases prior to that were known as Postgres. I don't see the > > name change as having been desirable. > > Huh? v1.09 was Postgres95, v2.x (our v6.x) was PostgreSQL, and that was > over 4 years ago ... I stand corrected. The current release should be 2.0 of PostgreSQL.
I hate these discussions. Endless back and forth -- much ado about nothing. Yet... "PostgresSQL" does seem kinda unwieldy and awkward. And the "SQL" part does seem superfluous since most databases now support SQL in some way shape or form. Adding "SQL" now seems almost as arbitrary as the previous "95". Yes, not all databases can claim full SQL compliance, and Postgres does it better than MySQL but so what? PostgreSQL's "competition" is much broader: Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, etc. -- all of whom have excellent SQL support. If it is deemed important to tack on defining features of a "next generation" database then prehaps "OR" (object-relational) should be tacked on instead of, or in addition to "SQL"? But in five years this will again seem an unnecessary addition to "Postgre(s)" and the name would still be cumbersome. PostgreSQLOR?, PostgreSQL-OR?, PostgreORSQL? Postgre-ORSQL? I really don't know what the best name would be, and keeping it the way it is is just fine with me. I use PostgreSQL for what it is, not what it is called. Returning to the core descriptive term: "Postgre(s)" would be fine also. John ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > > In my personal experience, out in the real world, people refer to it as > > "Postgres". The QL being a mouthful, and contrary to the common practice > > of pronouncing SQL as SEQUEL. While Marc points out that technically > > Postgres died when it left Berkeley, that discontinuity is really only > > something we choose to acknowledge. As Henry points out, SQL > > is only one > > feature that happened to be added. Apart from not owning the domain > > name, why shouldn't it just be "Postgres"? > > Everybody I know also still sais "Postgres", leaving out the Q L > becaus it is too long. In german we would not have the "sequel" problem, > since we pronounce it "ess ku ell". I think they all know that they are > really > referring to PostgreSQL. Someone once described our name as anti-marketing. That point hit home with me. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Chris Bitmead wrote: > > > The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > > > > Just because ppl are referring to the project by the wrong name doesn't > > > make it right... > > > > Which do you prefer? To be the only one who is right, when everyone else > > is wrong. Or to change the definition of right so that the software is > > universally called by its correct name? > > > > Hmmm. Let's make a little table, shall we? > > Proper name Nickname > ----------- -------- > Chevrolet Chevy > PostgreSQL Postgres > Christopher Chris > Marcus Marc > Robert Bob > Richard Rick > > Since I don't see Chevrolet changing their name to Chevy just because > everyone calls it that, or Christopher Chris, Marcus Marc, Robert Bob, > etc. why do you feel it necessary to change PostgreSQL to Postgres? This is unfair because Vince(Vincent?) works for Chrysler. :-) Also, I never realized Marc was short for Marcus. I thought it was just a funny (Canuk/Canadian) spelling of Mark. :-) Shows you how stupid I am in some things. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026