Hi Ricardo,
suga@netbsd.com.br wrote:
>
<snip>
> I agree that "Postgres" is a
> better approach for what is desired. I still would like to know if this is
> really under discussion, I mean, if such change would be possible someday.
It's interesting to know what people's opinions are, and I don't feel
the desire for a simpler name to be wrong.
However, we all have taken a *lot* of time and effort to get the name
"PostgreSQL" recognised, and we should continue on doing this. Nowdays
I'm finding it very unusual to see new articles and publications going
online and getting it wrong, meaning that although there are legacy
documents out there refering to "Postgres", most of the new stuff online
is calling it the proper "PostgreSQL".
Lets stick with "PostgreSQL", simply because we are a solid project with
a good foundation, and we don't need to introduce uncertainties in
people's minds by changing the "Official" name of our project every few
years. "PostgreSQL" works, people recognise it, and its our brand
alone. :)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
> []'s
> Ricardo.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)
--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi