Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

- --On Saturday, September 01, 2007 18:34:49 -0400 Jan Wieck
<JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
wrote:

> Do you have any clue how many countless hours of useless discussion this name
> has cost us already? Unproductive hours that community members could
> otherwise have spent doing something useful. And I guarantee you, this
> nonsense will continue as long as the community as a whole is clinging to the
> situation as it is, driven by the fear factor you and others are using to
> encourage resisting change.

Yet you are *still* driven to fuel the debate, even though *three* foreign
language user groups, including probably our *largest* community of users
(Tatsuo and JPUG) have explicitly stated that they do *not* want to see the
name change ...

... wouldn't patch review to get 8.3 out the door be a much more productive use
of your time? Like, is anyone saying you *can't* use Postgres as a suitable
name when talking about it?

... its funny how the chief argument for change (difficult to pronounce)
doesn't seem to affect either the Japanese, French or Italian communities ...
in fact, I'd almost say that the whole drive is being pushed by "da English",
or those that would derive an immediate marketing (and, at the same time,
financial) benefit to seeing such a change come to pass (which, again, tend to
be "da English") ...

And of course, nobody who is pushing for this are even thinking of the myriad
of projects out there that actually *use* the PostgreSQL name in some form or
another, in either product name, or marketing materials ... but, of course,
that doesn't affect you, cause its not *your* money being flushed down the
drain ...

PostgreSQL is the *formal name*, while Postgres is the *trade name* ... call it
whichever you want, people will know what you are talking about ... get over it.

- ----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org MSN . scrappy(at)hub(dot)org
Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ . 7615664
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFG2e974QvfyHIvDvMRAl/1AKC0auBim2uUJoLm58sByyLlHzjT2wCgnh84
NYBtX5eRihLaG3VAKyQzjd8=
=fy/o
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 9/1/2007 7:02 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> PostgreSQL is the *formal name*, while Postgres is the *trade name* ... call it
> whichever you want, people will know what you are talking about ... get over it.

I could get over it, if this topic as well as the ugly Postgre sh*t it
causes as a side effect would ever stop popping up. But it seems to me
however often we "get over it", the problem only submerges to pop up
again for the next release. Could it be that "getting over it" is kinda
like playing ostrich - AGAIN, and that the numerous times we "got over
it" only made the situation worse by reinforcing a mistake made long ago?

I suggest we someday stop "getting over it" and instead "get done with
it". Because rest assured, otherwise it'll be back again ... and again.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

On 9/1/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> I could get over it, if this topic as well as the ugly Postgre sh*t it
> causes as a side effect would ever stop popping up. But it seems to me
> however often we "get over it", the problem only submerges to pop up
> again for the next release. Could it be that "getting over it" is kinda
> like playing ostrich - AGAIN, and that the numerous times we "got over
> it" only made the situation worse by reinforcing a mistake made long ago?

I agree.

> I suggest we someday stop "getting over it" and instead "get done with
> it". Because rest assured, otherwise it'll be back again ... and again.

Again, I agree. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it;
a seemingly continual trend in the Postgres community whether it's
feature or business-related. Ignoring a problem does not make it
disappear.

Throughout this discussion, it seems like the majority of people
against the name change, with the exception of those from Greenplum
and EnterpriseDB, are those who have a financial stake in it. And, as
JD suggested that EnterpriseDB's brand could be strengthened by the
name change, I just wanted to say that EnterpriseDB has never
suggested, in any way, that its community members should support the
Postgres name. It is my own personal opinion that Postgres is a
better name.

I understand the valid concerns made by the Postgres user groups and
by Gabriele Bartolini over printed PostgreSQL stuff like shirts and
materials. Trust me, it *will* be fine to distribute them until they
run out. Perhaps a lot of people here haven't been on eBay lately,
because collectible IT stuff goes quickly. No one will have a problem
accepting a PostgreSQL t-shirt if the name changes to Postgres.

Don't get me wrong. It will cost money to redo all the marketing
material if people feel that it's required immediately; which I don't.
Will CMD have to change it's tagline from, "The PostgreSQL Company"
to, "The Postgres Company"? That's a *business decision* for CMD, not
something that should affect a *community decision*.

Frankly, from what I've seen in the 7 or so years I've been working
with Postgres, the name PostgreSQL is definitely a problem. When all
of us were at the 10th anniversary, I don't recall a single person
talking about Postgres in discussion as PostgreSQL. If I had a dollar
for the number of times I heard it pronounced Postgre, I'd be quite
rich. The name PostgreSQL is just plain difficult for people.

IMHO, keeping the status quo will only continue to perpetuate advocacy
issues. Regardless, this thread has gone on for a *long* time and all
the debatable topics seem to be on the table. At some point, a vote
needs to be made.

I think the first decision should be on whether the name needs to be
changed. If it is decided to be changed, the next vote should be to
decide on when the name should be changed (8.3, 8.4, 9.0).

--
Jonah H. Harris, Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
EnterpriseDB Corporation | fax: 732.331.1301
33 Wood Ave S, 3rd Floor | jharris(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Iselin, New Jersey 08830 | http://www.enterprisedb.com/

Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On 9/1/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>> I could get over it, if this topic as well as the ugly Postgre sh*t it
>> causes as a side effect would ever stop popping up. But it seems to me
>> however often we "get over it", the problem only submerges to pop up
>> again for the next release. Could it be that "getting over it" is kinda
>> like playing ostrich - AGAIN, and that the numerous times we "got over
>> it" only made the situation worse by reinforcing a mistake made long ago?
>
> I agree.
>
>> I suggest we someday stop "getting over it" and instead "get done with
>> it". Because rest assured, otherwise it'll be back again ... and again.
>
> Again, I agree. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it;
> a seemingly continual trend in the Postgres community whether it's
> feature or business-related. Ignoring a problem does not make it
> disappear.

same goes for ignoring problems the move might cause - like we had
several of the large communities (french,italian and japanese) already
objecting for a switch like that hurting them.
And one other aspect is very much a problem too - we have WAY less
control over a number of key postgres.* domains (postgres.jp is not
registered, postgres.eu is registered to some weird place as is say
postgres.at or postgres.us).
And I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg of related problems.

>
> Throughout this discussion, it seems like the majority of people
> against the name change, with the exception of those from Greenplum
> and EnterpriseDB, are those who have a financial stake in it. And, as
> JD suggested that EnterpriseDB's brand could be strengthened by the
> name change, I just wanted to say that EnterpriseDB has never
> suggested, in any way, that its community members should support the
> Postgres name. It is my own personal opinion that Postgres is a
> better name.

it might be a better name(or not) but a switch like that involves much
more than simply saying "oh this is our new name" - I'm fairly convinced
that playing games with our name will hurt us (and the active community
at a large) for a while in a period where postgresql is gaining insight
into a lot of places that it had not before and I'm not sure that
changing names after years of years of having another will give
confidence to (management style) people.

>
> I understand the valid concerns made by the Postgres user groups and
> by Gabriele Bartolini over printed PostgreSQL stuff like shirts and
> materials. Trust me, it *will* be fine to distribute them until they
> run out. Perhaps a lot of people here haven't been on eBay lately,
> because collectible IT stuff goes quickly. No one will have a problem
> accepting a PostgreSQL t-shirt if the name changes to Postgres.

well those people invested a lot of personal time and money into all
that stuff (and I'm sure all that attended say pgday.it will fully
agree) and either way you phrase it it will cost them money and time to
come up with replacement merchandising.
This is time and money invested from people on there own pocket not
employed or supported by one of the dedicated postgresql companies or
being payed to work on postgresql full time so you are actually asking a
lot for here.

Stefan

Hi,

I don't agree on some things people opposing the name change
continue saying.

Stefan, you just mentioned two of them, and I can't
resist... ;)

> it might be a better name(or not) but a switch like that involves much
> more than simply saying "oh this is our new name" - I'm fairly convinced
> that playing games with our name will hurt us (and the active community
> at a large) for a while in a period where postgresql is gaining insight
> into a lot of places that it had not before and I'm not sure that
> changing names after years of years of having another will give
> confidence to (management style) people.

This would be a good argument against changing name to something
completeley different - say - "SushiDB".

Going from PostgreSQL -> Postgres, you wouldn't loose any brand
recognization, would you?

What about "Oracle9i" -> "Oracle Database 10g" then?

> well those people invested a lot of personal time and money into all
> that stuff (and I'm sure all that attended say pgday.it will fully
> agree) and either way you phrase it it will cost them money and time to
> come up with replacement merchandising.
> This is time and money invested from people on there own pocket not
> employed or supported by one of the dedicated postgresql companies or
> being payed to work on postgresql full time so you are actually asking a
> lot for here.

Replacement merchandising?
There's no sense *throwing away* PostgreSQL T-shirts and stuff if the
name changes. 90% of people who get them do it in support of the project and
will get them anyway.

I will personally buy 10 T-Shirts from Gabriele if the name changes ;)

Bye,
Chris.

Just a couple of points that I'd like to emphasize...

The EnterpriseDB Naming Poll
----------------------------
To those who haven't gone to the poll at postgres.enterprisedb.com, I'd
encourage you to do so. A freely available self-selected poll is a good
measurement approximation that is at least as good as the 100+ emails in
this thread.

I'm really not sure why, when invited to vote, people would stay away from
this poll. Isn't it the simplest way to get a quick view of how the people
in the discussion feel? Of course it's not scientifically and statistically
significant. It's an indicator, that's all. Just like the rest of this email
thread. If there's any concern about EnterpriseDB stuffing the vote, I
assure you that we simply put it up and left it at that.

Commercial Benefit
------------------
EnterpriseDB will receive zero commercial benefit from the name change.
Command Prompt may or may not. But none of this has anything to do with my
opinion on this topic. EnterpriseDB has already taken the position that we
wish to use Postgres in the name of the distribution we promote, and we have
moved forward with that. I don't believe there will be any problem *or* any
advantage if PostgreSQL/Postgres changes its name or not. I assure you all
that my motivation is simply to make a better, simpler, more pronounceable
name that doesn't call attention to a feature that is 10 years old.

Non-English Groups
------------------
I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal mentioned
that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
perspective.

Summary
-------
My take on the matter (one man's opinion, but based I think on reasonably
objective observation) is that there is a majority of support for the end
result of changing the name, and significant disagreement about timing and
implementation. To me, that suggests the need for a small task force to
develop an implementation strategy and plan. EnterpriseDB would be happy to
provide resources to help on this front.

I hope this is helpful.

-- Andy

On 9/2/07 8:19 AM, "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:

> Jonah H. Harris wrote:
>> On 9/1/07, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I could get over it, if this topic as well as the ugly Postgre sh*t it
>>> causes as a side effect would ever stop popping up. But it seems to me
>>> however often we "get over it", the problem only submerges to pop up
>>> again for the next release. Could it be that "getting over it" is kinda
>>> like playing ostrich - AGAIN, and that the numerous times we "got over
>>> it" only made the situation worse by reinforcing a mistake made long ago?
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>> I suggest we someday stop "getting over it" and instead "get done with
>>> it". Because rest assured, otherwise it'll be back again ... and again.
>>
>> Again, I agree. Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it;
>> a seemingly continual trend in the Postgres community whether it's
>> feature or business-related. Ignoring a problem does not make it
>> disappear.
>
> same goes for ignoring problems the move might cause - like we had
> several of the large communities (french,italian and japanese) already
> objecting for a switch like that hurting them.
> And one other aspect is very much a problem too - we have WAY less
> control over a number of key postgres.* domains (postgres.jp is not
> registered, postgres.eu is registered to some weird place as is say
> postgres.at or postgres.us).
> And I suspect this is only the tip of the iceberg of related problems.
>
>
>>
>> Throughout this discussion, it seems like the majority of people
>> against the name change, with the exception of those from Greenplum
>> and EnterpriseDB, are those who have a financial stake in it. And, as
>> JD suggested that EnterpriseDB's brand could be strengthened by the
>> name change, I just wanted to say that EnterpriseDB has never
>> suggested, in any way, that its community members should support the
>> Postgres name. It is my own personal opinion that Postgres is a
>> better name.
>
> it might be a better name(or not) but a switch like that involves much
> more than simply saying "oh this is our new name" - I'm fairly convinced
> that playing games with our name will hurt us (and the active community
> at a large) for a while in a period where postgresql is gaining insight
> into a lot of places that it had not before and I'm not sure that
> changing names after years of years of having another will give
> confidence to (management style) people.
>
>>
>> I understand the valid concerns made by the Postgres user groups and
>> by Gabriele Bartolini over printed PostgreSQL stuff like shirts and
>> materials. Trust me, it *will* be fine to distribute them until they
>> run out. Perhaps a lot of people here haven't been on eBay lately,
>> because collectible IT stuff goes quickly. No one will have a problem
>> accepting a PostgreSQL t-shirt if the name changes to Postgres.
>
> well those people invested a lot of personal time and money into all
> that stuff (and I'm sure all that attended say pgday.it will fully
> agree) and either way you phrase it it will cost them money and time to
> come up with replacement merchandising.
> This is time and money invested from people on there own pocket not
> employed or supported by one of the dedicated postgresql companies or
> being payed to work on postgresql full time so you are actually asking a
> lot for here.
>
>
> Stefan

On 9/2/2007 8:19 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> same goes for ignoring problems the move might cause - like we had
> several of the large communities (french,italian and japanese) already
> objecting for a switch like that hurting them.

Can it be that both camps exaggerate a little about their own "pain" and
try to play down the others? I am well known for doing that, but who
else is willing to admit it?

> And one other aspect is very much a problem too - we have WAY less
> control over a number of key postgres.* domains (postgres.jp is not
> registered, postgres.eu is registered to some weird place as is say
> postgres.at or postgres.us).

That is almost the only aspect of changing the name, that won't solve
itself by time going by alone. Maybe some of our wealthier community
members will be able to help those in need. Nobody asked to get rid of
all references to PostgreSQL shortly. It is a process that will take a
few years for sure.

On the other side, the "Postgre" thing won't ever go away no matter what
we do or say as long as we keep PostgreSQL. So is everyone, who is
against the change, willing to add something like this to the FAQ:

"A natural result of our project name is that it is frequently
referred to as Postgre. The name Postgre has therefore officially
been adopted as another accepted abbreviation of the formal project
name Postgre SQL. In an effort to reduce the number of names referring
to our project, we discourage from using Postgres and all other names
in favor of Postgre and Postgre SQL."

Well, maybe without the last sentence, but anyway, are people fine with
our database being called Postgre all over the place? Because that is
what is happening and it will never stop if we keep PostgreSQL, so we
might as well stop trying to make people using that abbreviation look
like bloody noobs who don't even know the name of the database they are
trying to use.

And we should post this for a while in frequent intervals on all our
mailing lists in order to stop folks from telling others "there is no
such thing as Postgre".

So my question really is, is everyone out there who does not want to
change to Postgres now willing to officially accept Postgre as well?

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

Chris Mair wrote:
> Hi,
>

> Going from PostgreSQL -> Postgres, you wouldn't loose any brand
> recognization, would you?
>
> What about "Oracle9i" -> "Oracle Database 10g" then?
>

You are confusing company names, product names and brand names.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

Andy Astor wrote:
> Commercial Benefit
> ------------------
> EnterpriseDB will receive zero commercial benefit from the name change.

All due respect Andy but that is simply not true. You have EnterpriseDB
Postgres, there is name correlation. That is business value. You know
better.

> Command Prompt may or may not. But none of this has anything to do with my
> opinion on this topic. EnterpriseDB has already taken the position that we
> wish to use Postgres in the name of the distribution we promote, and we have
> moved forward with that. I don't believe there will be any problem *or* any
> advantage if PostgreSQL/Postgres changes its name or not. I assure you all
> that my motivation is simply to make a better, simpler, more pronounceable
> name that doesn't call attention to a feature that is 10 years old.

I don't question your motivation (just to be clear) all I am saying is
that *our* motivation is marred about our obvious potential business
possibilities made by the change.

We need to be listening to the community as a whole and our community
that doesn't speak English natively is screaming loud and clear that
they don't want this to happen.

>
> Non-English Groups
> ------------------
> I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
> PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal mentioned
> that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
> perspective.

Yes but the current Spanish community versus the current Italian, French
and Japanese communities is a different matter in terms of size and
activity.

Sincerely.

Joshua D. Drake

>> Non-English Groups
>> ------------------
>> I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
>> PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal mentioned
>> that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
>> perspective.
>
> Yes but the current Spanish community versus the current Italian, French
> and Japanese communities is a different matter in terms of size and
> activity.

You're putting this as if there had been an official vote against the change
by the Italian, French and Japanese communities. This is not the case -
or at least I'm sure it's not the case for the Italian community, which I'm part
of.

I'd say core should vote: if they don't do anything now the topic will come up
every 6 months from now on. If they vote the rest of us will accept any outcome
(except postgre ;).

After reading the different arguments, personally, now I'd go with Postgres,
low-profile change, not at a major release and - as Gabriele suggested - with
some heads-up time ahead for the community (so nobody does a conference with the
wrong title because they didn't know).

Bye,
Chris.

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Andy Astor wrote:
>> Commercial Benefit
>> ------------------
>> EnterpriseDB will receive zero commercial benefit from the name change.
>
> All due respect Andy but that is simply not true. You have EnterpriseDB
> Postgres, there is name correlation. That is business value. You know
> better.

If that was the aim we would have branded it as "EnterpriseDB
PostgreSQL" from the outset. At the time that was decided this
reincarnation of the topic was far in the future so there was no reason
for us to suspect a possible name change.

/D

Dave Page wrote:
> If that was the aim we would have branded it as "EnterpriseDB
> PostgreSQL" from the outset.

Or "EnterpriSQL", along with flaming customers who say "Enterpri".

IMHO the only reason we tolerate PostgreSQL is we're so numb to it.

To our execs, customers, and competitors "PostgreSQL" is just
as absurd as "EnterpriSQL".

Andy Astor escribió:

> Non-English Groups
> ------------------
> I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
> PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal mentioned
> that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
> perspective.

One thing to note, though, is that we don't have as much activity as the
other groups. In particular we haven't produced any swag with the
PostgreSQL name, or even anything as a "PostgreSQL Day".

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

Quite a long thread, this. My full support for the idea of taking it
into an online poll and perhaps having a comment feature so people
could leave their rationale.

FWIW, everyone I have ever spoken to calls it Postgres. They always
write PostgreSQL, with the correct spelling. I am in Asia and work
with people from all over the world.

As for Google, I think people misunderstand. It works through
references and semantic interpolations in the background. If
"postgres.org" becomes the *official* domain name and the site
mentions both postgres and postgresql in its header, it'll be a cinch
for Google to associate all the legacy sites talking about
"postgresql" with the new shorter name. So using search engines' stash
as an argument for or against the name change doesn't hold any water.
Just look at the name changes in other DB or software camps.

Shanx

On Sep 2, 2007, at 5:54 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andy Astor escribió:
>
>> Non-English Groups
>> ------------------
>> I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-
>> English
>> PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal
>> mentioned
>> that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
>> perspective.
>
> One thing to note, though, is that we don't have as much activity
> as the
> other groups. In particular we haven't produced any swag with the
> PostgreSQL name, or even anything as a "PostgreSQL Day".

Again, we need to quit worrying about material that's been printed.
There's no reason to throw existing stuff out. And it seems a big
part of the argument from the foreign groups centers around marketing
material.

Pronouncibility for English speakers is a *HUGE* problem with the
current name. Why doesn't that exist for other languages? Because
it's a foreign name to begin with! Would Americans care one wit if
Mitsubishi was instead called Samsung? No, because they'd just learn
how to pronounce the name (yes, I know that's an inaccurate example,
but I had to pick another Japanese name everyone knows how to
pronounce).

At *worst*, Postgres is just an un-pronouncible in a foreign tongue
as PostgreSQL is; but I'll bet that in many languages Postgres is
going to be better, just like in English.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

Ciao Andy,

Non-English Groups
> ------------------
> I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
> PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal
> mentioned
> that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
> perspective.
>

If you carefully read my post, I was not objecting the change of the name
itself, for which I leave myself to a democratic decision (I even suggested
the core team to take this decision).

I personally agree that "Postgres" sounds heaps better than "PostgreSQL" in
Italian - we discussed this during PGDay too. And that's the name that
people normally use to refer to it in Italy. I am sure that's the same issue
for the latin speaking countries (including Spanish, French and Portuguese),
but that does not mean that a name change is required.

As you can see, from a purely language based point of view, you get no
objections from me: "Postgres" is better than "PostgreSQL". But you can't
ignore the communities problems that - at least in the short term - we will
face. I believe that's a bit disrispectful and it cannot be left to the
case.

Also, I am not aware of any Spanish community at the moment - actually
nobody from Spain ever took part to the organisation of PGDay and the
European Group or even marginally got involved.

I am objecting the way this change will eventually occur. It must be planned
and it must be promoted, because it takes time to re-organise everything,
and I believe:

1) this is morally *due* to the national communities (yes, I think it is the
least that can be done)
2) this looks way more *professional* at the eyes of the companies

Thank you.

Ciao,
Gabriele

P.S.: Chris, do you really want to buy 10 shirts? :)

On Monday 3 September 2007 06:55, Gabriele Bartolini wrote:
> P.S.: Chris, do you really want to buy 10 shirts? :)

I think it would be cool to offer swag at conference that came from different parts of the community at a single booth :-)

Robert

2007-09-02_22:14:43-0400 Shashank Tripathi <shashank(dot)tripathi(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> FWIW, everyone I have ever spoken to calls it Postgres.

So if the name changes, it will be alright if everyone else continues to
call it PostgreSQL.

--
Ron Peterson
https://www.yellowbank.com/

Ciao Gabriele,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I understand better your position. At
this point, it¹s very clear to me that:

1. most people would rather see the name changed, and that
2. most people want to ensure that we do the change thoughtfully and
correctly.

I count myself in favor of both of these, as well.

--Andy

On 9/3/07 6:55 AM, "Gabriele Bartolini" <gabriele(dot)bartolini(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Ciao Andy,
>
>> Non-English Groups
>> ------------------
>> I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
>> PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal mentioned
>> that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
>> perspective.
>
> If you carefully read my post, I was not objecting the change of the name
> itself, for which I leave myself to a democratic decision (I even suggested
> the core team to take this decision).
>
> I personally agree that "Postgres" sounds heaps better than "PostgreSQL" in
> Italian - we discussed this during PGDay too. And that's the name that people
> normally use to refer to it in Italy. I am sure that's the same issue for the
> latin speaking countries (including Spanish, French and Portuguese), but that
> does not mean that a name change is required.
>
> As you can see, from a purely language based point of view, you get no
> objections from me: "Postgres" is better than "PostgreSQL". But you can't
> ignore the communities problems that - at least in the short term - we will
> face. I believe that's a bit disrispectful and it cannot be left to the case.
>
> Also, I am not aware of any Spanish community at the moment - actually nobody
> from Spain ever took part to the organisation of PGDay and the European Group
> or even marginally got involved.
>
> I am objecting the way this change will eventually occur. It must be planned
> and it must be promoted, because it takes time to re-organise everything, and
> I believe:
>
> 1) this is morally *due* to the national communities (yes, I think it is the
> least that can be done)
> 2) this looks way more *professional* at the eyes of the companies
>
> Thank you.
>
> Ciao,
> Gabriele
>
> P.S.: Chris, do you really want to buy 10 shirts? :)
>

Gabriele Bartolini escribió:

> Also, I am not aware of any Spanish community at the moment - actually
> nobody from Spain ever took part to the organisation of PGDay and the
> European Group or even marginally got involved.

Yeah, people from Spain is scarce. When we say "the spanish community"
what we actually mean is "the spanish-speaking community", which
includes Latin America. A lot of them have never travelled outside
their own countries, let alone Europe. There is people from Spain in
there too but not very much, it seems.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Jim Nasby escribió:

> Pronouncibility for English speakers is a *HUGE* problem with the current
> name. Why doesn't that exist for other languages? Because it's a foreign
> name to begin with!

Actually, it is a problem in spanish too. Postgres even sounds like a
regular word, and is easily pronounceable; PostgreSQL is just a weird
construct and not many people know what to do with it (except mashing it
into something else for saying out loud).

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

On 9/3/07, Ron Peterson <ron(dot)peterson(at)yellowbank(dot)com> wrote:
> 2007-09-02_22:14:43-0400 Shashank Tripathi <shashank(dot)tripathi(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>
> > FWIW, everyone I have ever spoken to calls it Postgres.
>
> So if the name changes, it will be alright if everyone else continues to
> call it PostgreSQL.

Having used <whatevertheheckyouwannacallit> since the early 90s, and
the days pre-SQL with Quel, I've always called it Postgres, everyone
I've run into in the commercial/federal world who uses it calls it
Postgres. I've seen multiple people comment on how verbally it is
called Postgres, but in writing it's called PostgreSQL. Is it really
that hard to understand that this is a major issue among the
non-technical?

To put it quite bluntly, I've never been stopped from using Postgres
by a technical person; it has always been a manager. Often it involves
long winded explanations of why he's never heard of it, where it came
from, and sometimes, why it has a dumb (yes, dumb) name.

Every time I write anything, I have to go back and make sure I used to
dumb name, and not the one that makes sense. Today, in 2007, nobody is
going to suddenly assume that we don't support SQL, and while a
majority of the databases in the open source world are burdened with
SQL in their name, this isn't true in the commercial world:

* Oracle
* Sybase
* DB/2
* SQL Server
* Teradata

That's what people call them in the "open" world outside an
echo-chamber. At some point, they might say "Oracle 10g", though I've
never heard anyone say "DB/2 UDB", and truthfully never hear anyone
say "Sybase" in any form any more.

The argument about issues in other languages are moot.
Postgres/PostgreSQL are vaguely English words, and will always be
foreign to someone in Japan, regardless of which you choose. Extra
care will be taken inversely proportional to the lack of care in the
English-speaking world.
Last I looked around, we're the only community having this confusion
and discussion, which should tell you more than any one person's
opinion that it will continue to occur, over and over, until something
is done about it.

Better now than later.

Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Non-English Groups
> > ------------------
> > I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
> > PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal mentioned
> > that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
> > perspective.
>
> Yes but the current Spanish community versus the current Italian, French
> and Japanese communities is a different matter in terms of size and
> activity.

Joshua, it is hard to gauge the foreign communities when there are only
a handful active in this discussion. I would guess there is as much
variance in those communities as in the English-speaking community.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andy Astor escribi?:
>
> > Non-English Groups
> > ------------------
> > I've carefully read all the objections, including those of the non-English
> > PG organizations. But I don't believe anyone against this proposal mentioned
> > that Alvaro strongly supported the name change from his (Spanish)
> > perspective.
>
> One thing to note, though, is that we don't have as much activity as the
> other groups. In particular we haven't produced any swag with the
> PostgreSQL name, or even anything as a "PostgreSQL Day".

Agreed, but basing a name change on swag value seems unwise.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

On 03/09/07, Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
<snip>
> Every time I write anything, I have to go back and make sure I used to
> dumb name, and not the one that makes sense. Today, in 2007, nobody is
> going to suddenly assume that we don't support SQL, and while a
> majority of the databases in the open source world are burdened with
> SQL in their name, this isn't true in the commercial world:
>
> * Oracle
> * Sybase
> * DB/2
> * SQL Server
> * Teradata
</snip>

If it's any consolation, DB2 (proper form - no slash) seems to be
burdened with a name that continues to suffer from branding confusion
with the defunct OS/2. Even IBMers get it wrong.

I don't expect they'll be changing the name, though.

--
Dan Scott
Laurentian University

Christopher Petrilli wrote:
>> a majority of the databases in the open source world are burdened with
>> SQL in their name, this isn't true in the commercial world:
...
>> * SQL Server

Isn't this one "burdened" with "SQL" in its name?

>> * DB/2

Dan Scott wrote:
> If it's any consolation, DB2 (proper form - no slash) seems to be
> burdened with a name that continues to suffer from branding confusion
> with the defunct OS/2. Even IBMers get it wrong.
>
> I don't expect they'll be changing the name, though.

--
Lew