On Wednesday 10 July 2002 09:26 pm, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Lamar Owen wrote:
> > If you doubt that fact, you need to read the archives for awhile to get a
> > sense of how this project is organized. If the steering committee (the
> > core six) decide against something, then that something
> I don't think you can just "shut down" a discussion about a name change.
Well, you're right. *I* can't shut anything down (except my server...). But
my reply was targeted to the 'who died and made you king' ad hominem.
> I think there is room for an "also called postgres" push among our users
> and for marketing. Oracle is changing the name of their server all the
> time to position it for marketing so having a secondary name doesn't
> hurt. Our _official_ name is PostgreSQL.
Is that like the Artist Formerly Known as Prince? Now abbreviated to
'Artist'? Why beat around the bush about our name? This is confusion.
> (I personally voted for 'tigres' at the time we chose PostgreSQL.)
As in the river? Does that mean we consider ourselves to be the new seat of
power in the world? Hey, maybe I need to change my name to Tiglathpileser or
something. Hey, we could then have Sargon as our engine, Pul as our system
of scripting, Shalmaneser as the trademark for 'readers don't have to wait
for writers', Sennacherib as the patented system for stuffing data that goes
beyond the size of a tuple.....
As long as a project from Iraq called 'Babylon' lead by a royal Nebuchadnezzar
doesn't come around....
Time to retreat to Nineveh....
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11