Re: Change the name

View Post

Flat Thread Threaded | < Prev - Next >

Andy Astor Re: Change the name

+1 vote

[ Flat Thread Threaded ]

> This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

--B_3272685629_12847469
Content-type: text/plain;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

I�ll just add a couple of quick comments:

1. Regarding the FAQ change, that�s great. I�m glad something�s been done.
2. At some point way early on in this thread, Josh Berkus said the largest
community has already voted no. I don�t understand that comment. As best as
I can tell, it�s about 2-to-1 in favor of the change.
3. For what it�s worth, I agree with Chris Travers that Core should make the
call. But I also accept that that�s not how it works at this time. So be it.
4. I also agree with Markus below, when he says �a slow migration away from
PostgreSQL is the only option, as this is an open source project, not a
centralized, well managed company.� I actually do believe that a slow
migration is appropriate for all concerned parties, since � as Josh Drake
points out � there�s a ton of other stuff to do.
5. Now that Postgres is an officially acceptable substitute, EnterpriseDB
will begin migrating its terminology to �Postgres� when referring to the
world�s most advanced open source database project.

Andy

On 9/15/07 4:21 AM, "Markus Schiltknecht" <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> > Unfortunatly I took a fair amount of sales and marketing classes in
>> college,
>
> Why should that be unfortunate? :-) Anyway...
>
>> > so I guess I have to chime in here. The argument against it is weakening >>
the
>> > brand, and adding confusion to the market place. . We already suffer from
>> > this now, and promoting two names only makes this worse.
>
> We *still* suffer from this, despite having promoted PostgreSQL for long
> enough. From that very same marketing perspective, I'd say it's about
> time to clarify and shorten the name, so as to strengthen the brand.
>
>> > Honestly I can't believe that people would think the solution to having a
>> poor
>> > project name is to have two project names.
>
> We already *have* at least two (PostgreSQL and Postgres) commonly used
> names. Let's get rid of one of them!
>
>> > Especially when the two project
>> > names really means we continue on with four project names, as people
>> continue
>> > to use postgres-sequal and postgre.
>
> ..which isn't any worse than now.
>
>> > Furthermore, it is obvious that an FAQ
>> > entry cannot solve this problem, if it could, we wouldn't have the problem
>> to
>> > begin with, since the "how to pronounce" question has been there for years,
>> > along with an MP3 example.
>
> The FAQ change isn't meant as a final solution, but it's a first step
> towards "Postgres".
>
> IMO a slow migration away from PostgreSQL is the only option, as this is
> an open source project, not a centralized, well managed company.
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

--B_3272685629_12847469
Content-type: text/html;
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Change the name</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
I’ll just add a couple of quick comments: 
 
<OL><LI>Regarding the FAQ change, that’s great. I’m glad something’s been done.
<LI>At some point way early on in this thread, Josh Berkus said the largest community has already voted no. I don’t understand that comment. As best as I can tell, it’s about 2-to-1 in favor of the change.
<LI>For what it’s worth, I agree with Chris Travers that Core should make the call. But I also accept that that’s not how it works at this time. So be it.
<LI>I also agree with Markus below, when he says “a slow migration away from PostgreSQL is the only option, as this is an open source project, not a centralized, well managed company.” I actually do believe that a slow migration is appropriate for all concerned parties, since — as Josh Drake points out — there’s a ton of other stuff to do.
<LI>Now that Postgres is an officially acceptable substitute, EnterpriseDB will begin migrating its terminology to “Postgres” when referring to the world’s most advanced open source database project. 
</OL> 
Andy 
 
 
On 9/15/07 4:21 AM, "Markus Schiltknecht" <markus@bluegap.ch> wrote: 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE>Hi, 
 
Robert Treat wrote: 
> Unfortunatly I took a fair amount of sales and marketing classes in college, 
 
Why should that be unfortunate? :-) Anyway... 
 
> so I guess I have to chime in here. The argument against it is weakening the 
> brand, and adding confusion to the market place. . We already suffer from 
> this now, and promoting two names only makes this worse. 
 
We *still* suffer from this, despite having promoted PostgreSQL for long 
enough. From that very same marketing perspective, I'd say it's about 
time to clarify and shorten the name, so as to strengthen the brand. 
 
> Honestly I can't believe that people would think the solution to having a poor 
> project name is to have two project names. 
 
We already *have* at least two (PostgreSQL and Postgres) commonly used 
names. Let's get rid of one of them! 
 
> Especially when the two project 
> names really means we continue on with four project names, as people continue 
> to use postgres-sequal and postgre. 
 
..which isn't any worse than now. 
 
> Furthermore, it is obvious that an FAQ 
> entry cannot solve this problem, if it could, we wouldn't have the problem to 
> begin with, since the "how to pronounce" question has been there for years, 
> along with an MP3 example. 
 
The FAQ change isn't meant as a final solution, but it's a first step 
towards "Postgres". 
 
IMO a slow migration away from PostgreSQL is the only option, as this is 
an open source project, not a centralized, well managed company. 
 
Regards 
 
Markus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- 
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? 
 
<a href="http://archives.postgresql.org">http://archives.postgresql.org</a> 
 
</BLOCKQUOTE> 

</BODY>
</HTML>

--B_3272685629_12847469--