On Wed, 2002-07-10 at 10:24, Curt Sampson wrote:
> So then stop your temper tantrum, stop flaming people who are just
> considering the idea, and contribute something useful to the discussion.
> Yelling in all caps that we don't need to change the name, while
> providing no support for your argument, is certainly not going to help
> the heat-light ratio here.
If you don't want people to take PostgreSQL seriously then just put a
big red sign on the first page of the web site.
"The free rdbms that often changes it name - come back often to see how
we are called" seems like a good choice to me...
The whole discussion is a stupid waste of time because there is
_nothing_ wrong with the name as it is now. It is only causing pain and
confusion amongst users, newcomers and developers. It is only serving to
hurt PostgreSQL and how it is perceived.
Please stop!
Or just tell us that this sabotage is an effort to make us lose all that
we have invested in PostgreSQL? How many times a year will I have to go
and tell my clients that they are now using "xxxxx" as their SQL
database server? Will they understand? It is hard enough as it is
selling open source in some parts. We just don't need your help in
making it worse. Changing product names without reason does not make
sense.
In yesterdays post I said that Coke and Coca-Cola are the same drink.
Postgres and PostgreSQL are the same database for most sane people that
I have met in this community.
I just want the nutters to shut up and let us get on with something more
serious.
This is not a flame - it is common sense.
Tony
--
RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S
http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html
Macromedia UltraDev with PostgreSQL
http://www.animaproductions.com/ultra.html