Re: The naming question (Postgres vs PostgreSQL)

[Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>]

On 8/31/2007 6:21 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jan Wieck wrote:
> > On 8/31/2007 4:53 AM, Decibel! wrote:
> > > Yes, there's printed material that will have to be re-done. Big 
> > > whoop. If SPI and the corporate entities don't want to handle that 
> > > cost, I'll put up $500 of my own. If names didn't get changed because 
> > > of marketing material, we'd still be calling microwave ovens "radar 
> > > range"s.
> >
> > Nobody has to "redo" anything at all if they don't want to. Printed
> > material in the software industry tends to age and become shelfware
> > nobody is ever looking at again. As long as all future material is using
> > Postgres alone, the change will go along just fine.
>
> Ignoring the requirements of the communities in charge of the majority
> of advocacy of the larger whole is bad idea.

You entirely seem to ignore that quite some number of community members 
(me included) already abandoned this QL name monster and are referring 
to our product by its original, well known name Postgres.

Also keep in mind that this is not like we are "changing" our name in an 
instant to something unheard of until now. It is more like an attempt to 
correct the stupid decision from the past, that adding Qewl to Postgres 
was in the first place. I mean to the name, not to the parser.


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 #