Thread: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
Folks, As we discussed a couple weeks ago, Marc, Andrew, Tim Perdue, Chris Ryan and I are testing implementing GForge in place of GBorg for associated projects for PostgreSQL. One thing which was suggested initially was that this new project hosting site be at www.postgresql.net with projects being <projectname>.postgresql.net. However, some of the "porting" team felt that it would be confusing for people who typed in www.postgresql.net to be presented with the GForge interface, and suggested that we use the domain after what we'll be calling the new Tool, namely pgFoundry, thus putting stuff at www.pgFoundry.org and <projectname>.pgfoundry.org. So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter. I'm throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can indicate whether they: A) Favor www.postgresql.net B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless. Thanks for your time! -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> A) Favor www.postgresql.net
>> B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org
>> C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless.
> I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the
> better choice. The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the
> project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between
> "Postres, the database" and "related projects."
Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the
projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining
at *.postgresql.org. I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or
not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear
that the domains are related. pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random.
regards, tom lane
I think having a pgfoundry.postgresql.net/org is good, but it should have its own identity, pgfoundry.org for the main url gets my vote for what it's worth. Gavin Josh Berkus wrote: >Folks, > >As we discussed a couple weeks ago, Marc, Andrew, Tim Perdue, Chris Ryan and I >are testing implementing GForge in place of GBorg for associated projects for >PostgreSQL. > >One thing which was suggested initially was that this new project hosting site >be at www.postgresql.net with projects being <projectname>.postgresql.net. > >However, some of the "porting" team felt that it would be confusing for people >who typed in www.postgresql.net to be presented with the GForge interface, >and suggested that we use the domain after what we'll be calling the new >Tool, namely pgFoundry, thus putting stuff at www.pgFoundry.org and ><projectname>.pgfoundry.org. > >So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter. I'm >throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can >indicate whether they: > >A) Favor www.postgresql.net >B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org >C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless. > >Thanks for your time! > > >
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in
> "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long?
That would be okay with me ...
regards, tom lane
Jeroen, > > Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in > > "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long? Hmmm ... wouldn't that be rather awkward with the projects with longer names? http://orapgsqlviews.foundry.postgresql.org That's 39 characters, not including the http ... To speak up, I'd rather have either options (A) or (B) thank this option. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Mar 12, 2004, at 9:07 AM, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:01:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the >> projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database >> remaining >> at *.postgresql.org. I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or >> not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear >> that the domains are related. pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random. > > Agree with the last bit, but I really feel that the difference between > postgresql.org and postgresql.net is too subtle--at least for people > who > don't work with either very often. Just to speak up (as an avid lurker), I agree with Jeroen that this distinction is quite subtle and may cause confusion. Some may even expect the two to resolve to the same site, as a lot of popular sites own .com/.net/.org, all resolving to the same site. This can be read as support for *.pgfoundry.org, *.postgresql.org, or *.pgfoundry.postgresql.org. *.pgfoundry.org is short and clearly distinguished from postgresql.org *.postgresql.org is short, and clearly associated with postgresql.org (of course!), but there's no clear distinction that the former gborg projects are separate from, say, developer.postgresql.org or techdocs.postgresql.org. Is this distinction important? Maybe not? *.pgfoundry.postgresql.org is longer, clearly associated with postgresql.org, and clear that it's a distinct part of postgresql.org Michael Glaesemann grzm myrealbox com
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes: > > Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in > > "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long? > > That would be okay with me ... I'd go for "too long" myself ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Gavin M. Roy wrote: > I think having a pgfoundry.postgresql.net/org is good, but it should > have its own identity, pgfoundry.org for the main url gets my vote for > what it's worth. I like the shortness myself ... IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features and/or price ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter. I'm > throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can > indicate whether they: > > A) Favor www.postgresql.net > B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org > C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless. I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the better choice. The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between "Postres, the database" and "related projects." Jeroen
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:01:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the > projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining > at *.postgresql.org. I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or > not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear > that the domains are related. pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random. Agree with the last bit, but I really feel that the difference between postgresql.org and postgresql.net is too subtle--at least for people who don't work with either very often. Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long? Jeroen
Tom Lane wrote: >"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes: > > >>On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> >>>A) Favor www.postgresql.net >>>B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org >>>C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless. >>> >>> > > > >>I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the >>better choice. The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the >>project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between >>"Postres, the database" and "related projects." >> >> > >Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the >projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining >at *.postgresql.org. I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or >not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear >that the domains are related. pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random. > > > I'm really going to try hard to stay out of all the hoohaa that seems to be boiling ... I got involved arse-end foremost because I was stupid enough to tell Josh that he could call on me if he needed things done in Perl or Java, and he took sufficient license from that to inveigle me into a lot of other stuff, none of which looks remotely like Perl or Java. :-). I do enough webbish stuff by day and would far rather spend *my* time in a modest way making postgresql even better than it is. There are 2 name issues - the base site and the project sites. If I am web surfing and I go to foo.net or www.foo.net I expect (other things being equal) to go to the main page for organization foo. Going to some other page for the foo organization is just a bit weird. Now I know there are exceptions, millions of them, but they always jar slightly. That's why we settled on pgfoundry.net. There is no reason, however, that the individual projects could not live under both domains, i.e. projname.postgresql.net and projname.pgfoundry.net. This is very doable. As for "pgfoundry" - the name isn't set in concrete. In fact it is entirely trivial to change. Suggest another that might be better. cheers andrew
> > IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will > succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure > that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is > like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features > and/or price ... Really? What about BMW, Volvo or Mercedes? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: 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
> -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Berkus [mailto:josh@agliodbs.com] > Sent: 11 March 2004 23:14 > To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org > Subject: [pgsql-www] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org > > B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org I don't really mind too much either way, but if anything I would prefer B. /D
Michael Glaesemann wrote: > Just to speak up (as an avid lurker), I agree with Jeroen that this > distinction is quite subtle and may cause confusion. Some may even > expect the two to resolve to the same site, as a lot of popular sites > own .com/.net/.org, all resolving to the same site. Speaking of .com vs .net vs .org, anyone remember the mysql.com vs mysql.org fiasco? Anyway, if I can vote, I'll vote for postgresql.net (for the lack of better choices). I agree with Tom that "pgfoundry" is kind of random. It's not apparent at all that it's a PostgreSQL entity. Besides, Tom & Marc is already listed as the registrant of several domains including postgresql.com. Why not use them? Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org and postgresql.net... If people don't like to type long names, we can always do automatic redirection between <projname>.postgresql.net, postgresql.org/projects/<projname>, <projname>.projects.postgresql.org, etc. Or even perhaps use tinyurl :-) -- dave
--- David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> wrote:
--snip --
>
> Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider
> ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org
>
-- snip --
IMO this point of view is a short-sighted and narrow one. In
addition to trying to bring a more structured and developed
infrastructure to 3rd party developers this should also ease the
difficulty many non-developers have in finding related software to the
PostgreSQL project. This fact as well as the others should be taken
into consideration when making the decision on which route to go.
Chris Ryan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will > > succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure > > that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is > > like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features > > and/or price ... > > > Really? What about BMW, Volvo or Mercedes? What about them? My point is that as long as we market/advertise the *site*, the URL to get there isn't going to matter to anyone ... only that they can find it ... its a branding issue, not a 'how to get there' issue ... hell, in most cases, ppl are going to click on the link from www.postgresql.org without even looking at what the URL itself is ... Sorry, car analogy was a bad one in that case :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664