Thread: Re: [pgsql-www] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
[ I'm pushing Robert's comment over into the pghackers thread... ]
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> I wasn't going to force the issue just for my own sake... but ISTM Tom, Peter,
> myself and possibly others were all confused somewhat by the switch.
> Anyway... the only real point that I have about the whole thing is that
> people used to complain that gborg was too nebulous a name (ie. whats a
> gborg?) and people didnt know to look at it, or were confused as to what its
> purpose was. the idea of projects.postgresql.(org|net) seem like a real easy
> way to make it crystal clear as to what exactly was going on at that site.
> By making it pgfoundry.org, i guess it is clear as to its purpose as far as
> project hosting, but it loses some of its ties to postgresql, to the point
> where I think folks will wonder if this is an independent site or if it has
> the backing of the greater postgresql community. I tend to think that would
> be a step back...
I think that last is really the crux of the issue. Josh observed that
whatever the site name is, it will be the task of the advocacy group to
"market" it with the correct public perception. But choosing the right
name will surely make it easier to control the perception. What we're
really arguing about here, IMHO, is the perceived "distance" between the
domain names for the core project and the other projects. If they're
too different then it will be very hard to get people to see the
projects as related to PostgreSQL, no matter what marketing efforts we
try. OTOH if they're too similar that may confuse things in other ways.
My feeling is that we want people to consider these projects as closely
tied to the Postgres community and so postgresql.something is just right.
I can see there are different opinions out there though...
regards, tom lane
<quote who="Tom Lane"> > My feeling is that we want people to consider these projects as closely > tied to the Postgres community and so postgresql.something is just right. > I can see there are different opinions out there though... > foundry.postgresql.org?
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0600, Thomas Swan wrote: > > foundry.postgresql.org? Been through that one... Too long when you have to add project name as well. Jeroen
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:52, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0600, Thomas Swan wrote: > > > > foundry.postgresql.org? > > Been through that one... Too long when you have to add project name as > well. I don't understand why. Presumably the postgresql.org website will have a search for it, or it'll be a link, or it'll be a bookmark. How many people actually type in the full url anymore? Heck, when I goto the postgresql website I do a search in google for "postgres" and slam the "I'm feeling lucky" button. Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult find the subproject in the first place.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to > the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult > find the subproject in the first place. the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > > > Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to > > > the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult > > > find the subproject in the first place. > > > > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is > > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain > > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ... > > I hope there is heavy integration between the two, otherwise anyone who > doesn't read this forum will be very confused. there was never any question about integration between the two ... only the URL that ppl will go to to get to the projects pages ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...
I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to
<project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the only
objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too
long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.
Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
<project>.pgfoundry.org
<project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
point to the same place?
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to > > the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult > > find the subproject in the first place. > > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ... I hope there is heavy integration between the two, otherwise anyone who doesn't read this forum will be very confused.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:36:47 -0500 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes: > > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... > > postgresql.net is available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we > > are keeping that domain"clean" for any future stuff we want to do > > with the core project ... > > I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to > risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to > <project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the > only objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is > too long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection. > > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both > <project>.pgfoundry.org > <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org > point to the same place? My first vote would have been for postgresql.net, but I think <project>.projects.postgresql.org makes the most sense. If I wasn't "in the know" I wouldn't associate <something>.pgfoundry.(pgfoundry|postgresql).org with a PostgreSQL related projects by looking at the URL only. As for the "length" of the URL, I think any developer or user of PostgreSQL is knowledgeable enough to take advantage of browser bookmarks. :) I'm definitely against using 'pgfoundry.org' as I believe sub-projects should all fall under the currently used postgresql.org domain. Another thing to think about is search engine placement. Most search engines give higher listings to keywords that are in the domain name. While people will search for 'postgres' and/or 'postgresql' no one is going to come up with 'pgfoundry' on their own. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org> http://frank.wiles.org ---------------------------------
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both > <project>.pgfoundry.org > <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org > point to the same place? no objection here ... my only object is/was the length issue ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Tom, > > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by > > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both > > <project>.pgfoundry.org > > <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org > > point to the same place? Sounds good to me if it's doable via DNS. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > > > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by > > > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both > > > <project>.pgfoundry.org > > > <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org > > > point to the same place? > > Sounds good to me if it's doable via DNS. DNS wise its easy ... if anything, we could extend the 'dns gen' script we are using for the mirrors to auto-gen the DNS for the projects too ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:
> > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...
>
> I agree we don't want <project>.postgresql.org, as that is likely to
> risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to
> <project>.projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the only
> objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too
> long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.
>
> Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> <project>.pgfoundry.org
> <project>.pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> point to the same place?
>
I hate to be the fly in this ointment, but wouldn't
<project>.projects.postgresql.org be better? especially if you could
then point people to projects.postgresql.org as the main place to start
looking for projects related to postgresql.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:02:00PM -0600, Frank Wiles wrote: > > As for the "length" of the URL, I think any developer or user > of PostgreSQL is knowledgeable enough to take advantage of browser > bookmarks. :) I've heard this said a several times now, but that doesn't make me feel any better. I frequently find myself in situations where I *must* get to my project site from a memorized URL, and clicking through to it is a luxury I can ill afford. I travel. Sometimes I'm dependent on slow lines and/or other people's machines. For instance, whether I will be able to respond promptly to new support requests and bug reports over the entire month of May this year will depend partly on that ability. Apart from that, we could do with some public attention and that's where catchiness matters. Jeroen