Re: Wanted: new project slogan

PostgreSQL: Proven Reliability. Professional Extensibility. Open Community.

Zach Conrad

Or perhaps it should be:
PostgreSQL: Proven Reliability. Open Extensibility. Professional Community.

----- "Zach Conrad" <zach(dot)conrad(at)digitecinc(dot)com> wrote:

> PostgreSQL: Proven Reliability. Professional Extensibility. Open
> Community.
>
> Zach Conrad

Zach Conrad wrote:
> Or perhaps it should be:
> PostgreSQL: Proven Reliability. Open Extensibility. Professional Community.

I just received an anonymous submission:

Open and Free - The Only Way To Be

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

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

Hi there,

I resisted too long to this funny thread. Here's my contribution.

Some not-that-serious proposals :

PostgreSQL : Your databases belongs to ... you!
PostgreSQL : This one is free, unless you really don't want to.
PostgreSQL : The database under ACID
PostgreSQL : (Both the) worst name and the best database, ever.
PostgreSQL : If you care for you data only
PostgreSQL : Community driven database. Except gotchas.
PostgreSQL : Let others think it works because you're a good DBA
PostgreSQL : I swear it was working yesterday
PostgreSQL : No downtime, except when I do badly minded rm's
PostgreSQL : No need to benchmark it with others
PostgreSQL : We bring toasts

Ok. Let's do some more serious proposals

I like the idea where PostgreSQL fits every RDBMS needs:

PostgreSQL : One fits all. From small to world business companies.
PostgreSQL : Grows with your business
PostgreSQL : You'll try it for costs. You'll keep it for the rest.

... and the idea it is rock solid

PostgreSQL : Rock solid database
PostgreSQL : 24/7 database
PostgreSQL : Doesn't loose a single byte

... or the idea the community is the most important side of the project

PostgreSQL : When community meets business
PostgreSQL : Community works
PostgreSQL : The more brains, the better code
PostgreSQL : Community driven database
PostgreSQL : Every one's database.

Those are some cents of ideas.

I think lots of those proposal meets other ones. Thats a good point, we
share the same ideas on PostgreSQL.

Cheers,

--
Jean-Paul Argudo
www.PostgreSQLFr.org
www.Dalibo.com

On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 08:38 -0600, Zach Conrad wrote:
> Or perhaps it should be:
> PostgreSQL: Proven Reliability. Open Extensibility. Professional Community.

+1

Jeff Davis

On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 09:47 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 08:38 -0600, Zach Conrad wrote:
> > Or perhaps it should be:
> > PostgreSQL: Proven Reliability. Open Extensibility. Professional Community.
>
> +1
>

PostgreSQL: P.O.P.

:P

> Jeff Davis
>
>

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.

On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 09:52:18AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 09:47 -0800, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 08:38 -0600, Zach Conrad wrote:
> > > Or perhaps it should be:
> > > PostgreSQL: Proven Reliability. Open Extensibility. Professional
> > > Community.
> >
> > +1
> >
>
> PostgreSQL: P.O.P.

You down with O.P.P.?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 17:14, Jean-Paul Argudo
<jean-paul(at)postgresqlfr(dot)org> wrote:
> Hi there,
> I resisted too long to this funny thread. Here's my contribution.
> Some not-that-serious proposals :

We're not exactly there yet, but: :-D

PotsgreSQL: The world's most advanced and most popular open source database.

Best regards,
Dawid

2010/2/1 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 08:38 -0600, Zach Conrad wrote:
>> Or perhaps it should be:
>> PostgreSQL: Proven Reliability. Open Extensibility. Professional Community.
>

I think Community must be the key in the slogan.

What about:

Postgresql: The community behind the Database

--
Emanuel Calvo Franco
DBA at: www.siu.edu.ar
www.emanuelcalvofranco.com.ar
Join: http://www.thevenusproject.com/

On 2/2/10, Emanuel Calvo Franco <postgres(dot)arg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 2010/2/1 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
>> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 08:38 -0600, Zach Conrad wrote:
>>> Or perhaps it should be:
>>> PostgreSQL: Proven Reliability. Open Extensibility. Professional
>>> Community.
>>
>
> I think Community must be the key in the slogan.
>
> What about:
>
> Postgresql: The community behind the Database
>
>

i doubt most business users care about the community.

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

IMHO

Even though I seem to have been an accidental catalyst for this discussion,
I think it is time to offer some general comments about branding. I'll try
to keep it short.

Branding 101:

'Corporate Identity' (the new hip term is 'Branding' but in my view it means
basically the same thing) is what organisations DO in an attempt to
establish HOW they want to be viewed by their target market, the wider
community, their competitors, legislators, etc. ­ their 'Corporate Image'.

There are several elements that can influence your Corporate Image: name,
logo, colours, typography, quality of marketing (brochures, website,
advertising, merchandising, etc.) and product, dress, bearing and individual
behaviour of people in this and other forums.

The corporate identity programme aims to systematize these elements. But it
all begins with understanding your marketing objectives and how your
branding will support those objectives.

So firstly, we should codify our marketing objectives. Then, and only then,
should we be talking about branding.

Some would say that the marketing objectives are understood and agreed to. I
seriously question that. And I think it is reflected in the discussions on
this forum. It is inevitable that such a large and diverse group will have
different views. But there should always be a common direction. I don¹t see
that, beyond the fact that we all love PostgreSQL (the product, not the
name!); we would like it to be recognised as one of the world¹s best RDBMS
applications ­ commercial and open source; we would like it to be accessible
worldwide (with all the cultural, language and other issues that entails);
and we would like it to be perceived as being accessible for everyone
(advanced but easy to use.

What did I overlook?

I would never support ANY change to the Corporate Identity until I
understood EXACTLY what the marketing objectives are. Right now, I think the
tail is wagging the dog. Isn¹t this how we ended up with a suspect name, a
funny-looking icon that denotes big and slow to me and a wordy slogan that
throws out the wrong message to some of our target market.

Regards

Rob Napier

On 2/2/10 3:42 PM, Rob Napier wrote:
> we would like it to be recognised as one of the world’s best RDBMS
> applications – commercial and open source; we would like it to be
> accessible worldwide (with all the cultural, language and other issues
> that entails); and we would like it to be perceived as being accessible
> for everyone (advanced but easy to use).

Hmmm. Here's what I'd like people to think about us as a concept list:

* community-owned
* approachable
* hackable & extensible (the database you can customize)
* secure
* high-performance
* advanced features
* international
* standards-compliant

--Josh Berkus

Josh

If that is the way you wish to be viewed, don't change a thing.

E.g. I mentioned the importance of language. 'Extensible' is good,
'hackable' has too many negative connotations.

Community-owned. Nice but it should be near the bottom of the list. It also
has negative connotations in the corporate sphere. Not just a bit hokey, it
also can suggest undisciplined, under funded, and a few other prejoratives
that come to mind.

BUT when linked to approachable: That can be a good thing. Mozilla is
community owned but they are particularly careful about the way their image
is developed.

AND international: That implies strength, stability and accessibility.

The rest of your list is about the product. The technology needs to be
presented in more marketing terms.

I hope this is making some sense.

On 3/2/10 10:48 AM, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:

> On 2/2/10 3:42 PM, Rob Napier wrote:
>> we would like it to be recognised as one of the world¹s best RDBMS
>> applications ­ commercial and open source; we would like it to be
>> accessible worldwide (with all the cultural, language and other issues
>> that entails); and we would like it to be perceived as being accessible
>> for everyone (advanced but easy to use).
>
> Hmmm. Here's what I'd like people to think about us as a concept list:
>
> * community-owned
> * approachable
> * hackable & extensible (the database you can customize)
> * secure
> * high-performance
> * advanced features
> * international
> * standards-compliant
>
> --Josh Berkus
>

Regards

Rob Napier

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Rob Napier <rob(at)doitonce(dot)net(dot)au> wrote:

> I don’t see that, beyond the fact that we all love PostgreSQL (the product,
> not the name!); we would like it to be recognised as one of the world’s best
> RDBMS applications – commercial and open source; we would like it to be
> accessible worldwide (with all the cultural, language and other issues that
> entails); and we would like it to be perceived as being accessible for
> everyone (advanced but easy to use.
>

I think what people think about PostgreSQL is a way to the objectives but I
think the objective is:
To be the best database bar none.

This is why we're proud to be "The world's most advanced open source
database."

From this object flow some principles. I write we below in the royal sense
because I don't contribute code or anything. I just evangelize, quietly.
1. We have a good idea how databases should work we are working to evolve
PostgreSQL closer to that ideal.
2. We want as many good contributions to the project as possible.

Breaking those points down again yields:
1.1. We are not going to add cross db joins, index hints, etc.
1.2. We are going to add X, Y, Z features.
2.1. We want as many good contributors as possible.
2.1.1. We want to be as popular and useful as possible for the kind of
people who would contribute.
2.1.1.1. We want to be as popular as possible because that would expose
potential hackers to PosrgreSQL.
2.1.1.1.1. We want people to think X, Y, Z when they think PostgreSQL.
....

I know thats all kind of semantic but it puts things into perspective. For
example a slogan that alienates hackers would probably not be good. I can't
really help with that though.

While I'm writing who normally choses the database in an organization or for
a project? Where I've been its always been one of the first senior
developers. After the choice your pretty much stuck with it. The suits
don't really care so long as it doesn't cost too much money and the license
doesn't prevent them from doing what they want to do. PostgreSQL is golden
on both those counts.

Nik

Brilliantly crafted Nik! You should be in marketing.

You¹ve discussed product positioning, price and who are the decision makers.

This is exactly where I¹d like to see this conversation go.

Just imagine: A coherent and comprehensive marketing strategy.

On 3/2/10 11:47 AM, "Nikolas Everett" <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I think what people think about PostgreSQL is a way to the objectives but I
> think the objective is:
> To be the best database bar none.
>
> This is why we're proud to be "The world's most advanced open source
> database."
>
> From this object flow some principles.  I write we below in the royal sense
> because I don't contribute code or anything.  I just evangelize, quietly.
> 1.  We have a good idea how databases should work we are working to evolve
> PostgreSQL closer to that ideal.
> 2.  We want as many good contributions to the project as possible.
>
> Breaking those points down again yields:
> 1.1.  We are not going to add cross db joins, index hints, etc.
> 1.2.  We are going to add X, Y, Z features.
> 2.1.  We want as many good contributors as possible.
> 2.1.1.  We want to be as popular and useful as possible for the kind of people
> who would contribute.
> 2.1.1.1.  We want to be as popular as possible because that would expose
> potential hackers to PosrgreSQL.
> 2.1.1.1.1.  We want people to think X, Y, Z when they think PostgreSQL.
> ....
>
> I know thats all kind of semantic but it puts things into perspective.  For
> example a slogan that alienates hackers would probably not be good.  I can't
> really help with that though.
>
> While I'm writing who normally choses the database in an organization or for a
> project?  Where I've been its always been one of the first senior developers.
>  After the choice your pretty much stuck with it.  The suits don't really care
> so long as it doesn't cost too much money and the license doesn't prevent them
> from doing what they want to do.  PostgreSQL is golden on both those counts.
>
> Nik
>

Regards

Rob Napier

On Tuesday 02 February 2010 4:30:44 pm Rob Napier wrote:
> Josh
>
> If that is the way you wish to be viewed, don't change a thing.
>
> E.g. I mentioned the importance of language. 'Extensible' is good,
> 'hackable' has too many negative connotations.
>
> Community-owned. Nice but it should be near the bottom of the list. It also
> has negative connotations in the corporate sphere. Not just a bit hokey, it
> also can suggest undisciplined, under funded, and a few other prejoratives
> that come to mind.
>
> BUT when linked to approachable: That can be a good thing. Mozilla is
> community owned but they are particularly careful about the way their image
> is developed.
>
> AND international: That implies strength, stability and accessibility.
>
> The rest of your list is about the product. The technology needs to be
> presented in more marketing terms.

I guess it comes down to who we are 'selling' to. My sense is it is not the
ultimate user but the intermediary, in other words the techie. For instance, do
your customers for Once:radix participate in the Postgres community or do they
rely on you to do that? For them Postgres is at the bottom of stack that goes
Web browser --> Tomcat/Java --> Postgres. From what I have seen a lot of the
larger business use cases are in that situation. There is a middle layer of
personnel that deal with the app/db and then present it to the purchaser in a
manner they understand. The Postgres community should be reaching that middle
layer in manner they understand, technical points. The business marketing
should be left to those who appreciate it, the folks further up the food chain.

>
> I hope this is making some sense.
>

>
> Regards
>
> Rob Napier

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com

On ons, 2010-02-03 at 10:42 +1100, Rob Napier wrote:
> So firstly, we should codify our marketing objectives. Then, and only
> then, should we be talking about branding.

Well, ordinarily you would expect a commercial development organization
to function something like this:

--> Branding ---> Sales
/
Marketing --
\
--> Requirements engineering ---> Programming

But the PostgreSQL world operates more like this:

-- FUD <--- Random users <........................
/ .
Advocacy <-- .
\ .
-- Release notes scramble <--- Random hacking <...

Which is why from a traditional marketing perspective, nothing we do
makes a lot of sense. ;-)

On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:30:44AM +1100, Rob Napier wrote:
> Josh
>
> If that is the way you wish to be viewed, don't change a thing.
>
> E.g. I mentioned the importance of language. 'Extensible' is good,
> 'hackable' has too many negative connotations.
>
> Community-owned. Nice but it should be near the bottom of the list.
> It also has negative connotations in the corporate sphere. Not just
> a bit hokey, it also can suggest undisciplined, under funded, and a
> few other prejoratives that come to mind.

No offense, Rob, but you're just plain mistaken on this one. Linux is
community-owned, and it's precisely this that makes it attractive in
the corporate world. They know that Linux can't be made useless by
some other corporation, get bought out, or go out of business.

> BUT when linked to approachable: That can be a good thing. Mozilla is
> community owned but they are particularly careful about the way their image
> is developed.
>
> AND international: That implies strength, stability and accessibility.
>
> The rest of your list is about the product. The technology needs to be
> presented in more marketing terms.
>
> I hope this is making some sense.

Most of it did :)

Cheers,
David.
>
> On 3/2/10 10:48 AM, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/2/10 3:42 PM, Rob Napier wrote:
> >> we would like it to be recognised as one of the world¹s best RDBMS
> >> applications ­ commercial and open source; we would like it to be
> >> accessible worldwide (with all the cultural, language and other issues
> >> that entails); and we would like it to be perceived as being accessible
> >> for everyone (advanced but easy to use).
> >
> > Hmmm. Here's what I'd like people to think about us as a concept list:
> >
> > * community-owned
> > * approachable
> > * hackable & extensible (the database you can customize)
> > * secure
> > * high-performance
> > * advanced features
> > * international
> > * standards-compliant
> >
> > --Josh Berkus
> >
>
>
> Regards
>
> Rob Napier
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy

--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Rob Napier <rob(at)doitonce(dot)net(dot)au> wrote:

> 'hackable' has too many negative connotations.
>
> Community-owned. It also has negative connotations in the corporate sphere.

I think I don't like your friends.

--
greg

On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 07:35 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 11:30:44AM +1100, Rob Napier wrote:
> > Josh
> >
> > If that is the way you wish to be viewed, don't change a thing.
> >
> > E.g. I mentioned the importance of language. 'Extensible' is good,
> > 'hackable' has too many negative connotations.
> >
> > Community-owned. Nice but it should be near the bottom of the list.
> > It also has negative connotations in the corporate sphere. Not just
> > a bit hokey, it also can suggest undisciplined, under funded, and a
> > few other prejoratives that come to mind.
>
> No offense, Rob, but you're just plain mistaken on this one. Linux is
> community-owned, and it's precisely this that makes it attractive in
> the corporate world. They know that Linux can't be made useless by
> some other corporation, get bought out, or go out of business.

No, community-owned is not what makes it attractive. Free and stable is.
The fact that the majority of work done on Linux is actually done by
corporate people (Redhat, IBM, Oracle) makes it even more attractive.

If you go to a major corporation and say... Dude use my community-owned
database, you will be shown the door. Which is exactly one of the more
precise reasons that MySQL was kicking our butt in low end installations
for so long. Because it was an open source "Product" not "Project"

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
Respect is earned, not gained through arbitrary and repetitive use or Mr. or Sir.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net> wrote:

> I have spoken with upper management at more than one large company, all of
> whom said (though not in so many words) that the primary reason they (spend
> the tens-hundreds of K/year to) buy support is not because their own folks
> lack expertise, but because they want a "neck to strangle" (i.e. an entity
> on which to displace responsibility).
>
> Almost invariably, such management is allergic (i.e. has violent reactions
> to) the term 'community', and upon discovering the use of 'community'
> software in their enterprises start looking for a support contract to buy
> (i.e. CentOS -> RedHat, PostgreSQL -> EnterpriseDB) -OR- alternative
> supported products that they already license (i.e. PostgreSQL ->
> MS-SQL-Server). Lower-level workers who want to integrate open source
> products into their ecosystems have better luck when they suggest those
> supported alternatives.
>

I've seen an interesting spin on this: executives arguing they need a neck
to ring if something goes wrong but knowing that the license won't let them
but not admitting it because they want shareholders to feel better. Even at
that company we went with PostgreSQL.

I've also seen the opposite: an aversion to paying for anything thats so
strong that you pretty much have to use open source or free as in beer
tools. I've seen this at companies ranging from 30,000 to 8 employees.

Getting back to that first company - we went with PostgreSQL even though we
were an a semi-indemnity kick. Why? We'd been using it for a few years and
it worked well. We had lots of experience with it. We'd already optimized
for it. Lastly it is free.

In this case it was all about momentum. We got that momentum because we
appealed to a senior developer early in the process of forming the company.
If that hadn't happened I wouldn't even be on this mailing list.

So my point is that your probably not going to win anyone over who is
already using something else unless something drastic happens. We should
really be targeting those organizations that are just forming. Executives
may or may not come in later and want to do the whole PostgreSQL ->
EnterpriseDB thing.

You mention executive declaring a migration from PostgreSQL to MS-SQL.
Depending on the project that could either cost a couple man weeks or a
couple man months. Thats unlikely to be a good sell to an executive. I've
never seen one consider it. On the other hand I haven't been working all
that long and I don't tend to work for executives who won't listen to
reason.

Has anyone mentioned Greenplum yet? I'm thrilled about it because its made
the "news" a few times which can only lead to more PostgreSQL exposure.
Suites aren't going to know or care, but it gives us more clout with those
senior developers in forming companies.

Nik

>> Community-owned. It also has negative connotations in the corporate sphere.
>
> I think I don't like your friends.

It would be interesting to do a survey of "suits" to see in what
percentage of companies this is the case.

I have spoken with upper management at more than one large company, all of
whom said (though not in so many words) that the primary reason they
(spend the tens-hundreds of K/year to) buy support is not because their
own folks lack expertise, but because they want a "neck to strangle" (i.e.
an entity on which to displace responsibility).

Almost invariably, such management is allergic (i.e. has violent reactions
to) the term 'community', and upon discovering the use of 'community'
software in their enterprises start looking for a support contract to buy
(i.e. CentOS -> RedHat, PostgreSQL -> EnterpriseDB) -OR- alternative
supported products that they already license (i.e. PostgreSQL ->
MS-SQL-Server). Lower-level workers who want to integrate open source
products into their ecosystems have better luck when they suggest those
supported alternatives.

I wish I was just being silly with this dialogue, but this has been my
experience with corporate IT.

-JK

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Joshua Kramer <josh(at)globalherald(dot)net> wrote:

>
> In this case it was all about momentum. We got that momentum because we
>>
> .....
>
>> You mention executive declaring a migration from PostgreSQL to MS-SQL.
>> epending on the project that could either cost a couple man weeks or a
>>
>
> Actually, this process usually does not manifest itself as an order to
> "Migrate from PG to MS". Instead, it goes something like this. Somebody in
> the company sees an opportunity to increase efficiency or save money by
> using some application that runs on only one or two database engines
> (usually some combination of My or Postgres). This person does a
> cost/benefit analysis and presents the findings. The suits say, "hey that's
> great, we'll approve it if you can get it running on MS-SQL or Oracle". To
> be fair, there is value in only having one or two in-house database engines
> (usually MS-SQL and Oracle), but after you get so many of these cost-saving
> "could have done's" that value is eroded.
>
> Having said that... if I remember correctly, somewhere xTuple claimed
> having at least one Fortune 1000 company as a client. xTuple (the ERP
> system) is based on PostgreSQL, so there is definitely some Postgres
> movement for mission-critical loads in Fortune land.
>

I am enlightened.

I assume you only mean Fortune 1000 vanilla PostgreSQL. If you count
extensions then we've probably got more than ten and less than one hundred
of them.

> In this case it was all about momentum. We got that momentum because we
.....
> You mention executive declaring a migration from PostgreSQL to MS-SQL.
> epending on the project that could either cost a couple man weeks or a

Actually, this process usually does not manifest itself as an order to
"Migrate from PG to MS". Instead, it goes something like this. Somebody
in the company sees an opportunity to increase efficiency or save money by
using some application that runs on only one or two database engines
(usually some combination of My or Postgres). This person does a
cost/benefit analysis and presents the findings. The suits say, "hey
that's great, we'll approve it if you can get it running on MS-SQL or
Oracle". To be fair, there is value in only having one or two in-house
database engines (usually MS-SQL and Oracle), but after you get so many of
these cost-saving "could have done's" that value is eroded.

Having said that... if I remember correctly, somewhere xTuple claimed
having at least one Fortune 1000 company as a client. xTuple (the ERP
system) is based on PostgreSQL, so there is definitely some Postgres
movement for mission-critical loads in Fortune land.

Best,
-JK

> If you go to a major corporation and say... Dude use my community-owned
> database, you will be shown the door. Which is exactly one of the more
> precise reasons that MySQL was kicking our butt in low end installations
> for so long. Because it was an open source "Product" not "Project"

Er, no. There's a tremendous tendency in this community to misattribute
MySQL's relative commercial success to some aspect of marketing
strategy. This could not be further from the truth, and it's important
that people in this community realize that so that we don't waste our
energies in the wrong place.

MySQL became more widely adopted than PostgreSQL for 3 reasons:
1) it was "ready to use" in 1997 and we were not,
2) it adapted to and catered to web developers rather than demanding
that they learn things or change habits,
3) it focused on strategic features in a timely fashion, at least up
until 2004.

MySQL didn't even begin to have serious professional marketing until
2004, which was already the peak of MySQL open source adoption, and that
marketing was almost entirely focussed on converting OSS adoption to
commercial customers.

--Josh Berkus

Josh Berkus wrote:
>> If you go to a major corporation and say... Dude use my community-owned
>> database, you will be shown the door. Which is exactly one of the more
>> precise reasons that MySQL was kicking our butt in low end installations
>> for so long. Because it was an open source "Product" not "Project"
>
> MySQL became more widely adopted than PostgreSQL for 3 reasons:
> 1) it was "ready to use" in 1997 and we were not,
> 2) it adapted to and catered to web developers rather than demanding
> that they learn things or change habits,
> 3) it focused on strategic features in a timely fashion, at least up
> until 2004.

I'm not sure I agree with either one of you.

From places I saw MySQL get wins, the reasons were:

1. [in a dozen tiny accounts] - MySQL worked on Windows earlier,
so Windows and mixed development shops liked it better.

2. [in a couple large accounts] - MySQL had more impressive customer
testimonials with Yahoo (2001), Sabre/Travelocity (2003),
and Google AdWords(2005). Yes, I know Postgres had users too,
by they were much less visible in business press, etc.

Regarding the slogan, IMVHO it's deep into the don't care
area; well behind the postgre-SQL vs postgres-QL debates.
Though as much as people joke about the "now with easy
hot slaves" one, it
(a) highlights new features where Postgres was lacking, and
(b) would get picked up by a lot of blogs and social sites, and
(c) would probably get more people to read the announcement
just to see what it's talking about.

> Regarding the slogan, IMVHO it's deep into the don't care
> area; well behind the postgre-SQL vs postgres-QL debates.
> Though as much as people joke about the "now with easy
> hot slaves" one, it
> (a) highlights new features where Postgres was lacking, and
> (b) would get picked up by a lot of blogs and social sites, and
> (c) would probably get more people to read the announcement
> just to see what it's talking about.

It's certainly given me an idea for a t-shirt. ;-)

--Josh

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 01:16, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding the slogan, IMVHO it's deep into the don't care
>> area; well behind the postgre-SQL vs postgres-QL debates.
>> Though as much as people joke about the "now with easy
>> hot slaves" one, it
>>   (a) highlights new features where Postgres was lacking, and
>>   (b) would get picked up by a lot of blogs and social sites, and
>>   (c) would probably get more people to read the announcement
>>       just to see what it's talking about.

(d) is instantly out of date once 9.1 is ready

That's not a project slogan, that's a release slogan.

> It's certainly given me an idea for a t-shirt. ;-)

Release slogans work better on t-shirts :-)

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

I know this thread is long dead and this isn't a good slogan any way but:

PostgreSQL: Put away childish things.

First: its horrible.
Second: It really only compares PostgreSQL and MySQL.

On the other hand -
* Why do I need an index for each foreign key? Oh! Its because MySQL
things I'm some kind of blithering idiot. Of course I can't disable that
behavior! And how in the world did http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=21395 come
about?
* SELECT post_id, count(*) FROM comment; works in MySQL. It produces one
row. GROUP BY is for suckers.
* Non transactional tables are the default?!
* The connector is GPL!?

I only write this because I recently worked myself into a ten minute long
rage and want to share.

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 01:16, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >> Regarding the slogan, IMVHO it's deep into the don't care
> >> area; well behind the postgre-SQL vs postgres-QL debates.
> >> Though as much as people joke about the "now with easy
> >> hot slaves" one, it
> >> (a) highlights new features where Postgres was lacking, and
> >> (b) would get picked up by a lot of blogs and social sites, and
> >> (c) would probably get more people to read the announcement
> >> just to see what it's talking about.
>
> (d) is instantly out of date once 9.1 is ready
>
> That's not a project slogan, that's a release slogan.
>
>
> > It's certainly given me an idea for a t-shirt. ;-)
>
> Release slogans work better on t-shirts :-)
>
> --
> Magnus Hagander
> Me: http://www.hagander.net/
> Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-advocacy mailing list (pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-advocacy
>