On Mon, 9 Aug 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > There's only a little thing that I would like to recall your attention;
> > > I see whenever the name Postgres instead of
> > > PostgreSQL. Is there a reason to continue to call it Postgres in the
> > > docs ?
> >
> > I have chosen to use "Postgres" within the docs, as a shorter (and
> > pronouncable ;) form of our product. "PostgreSQL" appears in all
> > titles and introductory material. I have considered the "SQL" part of
> > the "PostgreSQL" as sort of a version or branch, like "OpenIngres" or
> > "Windows 2000", and a bit cumbersome in the body of the docs.
> >
> > But that was a choice which can always be reconsidered, we're just a
> > "sed" away from a different name...
>
> I vote for PostgreSQL.
I'm just an end user who loves the product...with an opinion. ;-)
Although I never used postgres (i.e., prior to the suffix being appended)
I always use `postgres' in conversation both as it is easily pronounced
and as there is a rather noteable history/lineage. When communicating
with other postgres fans I say pee-gee...
When I refer specfically to the newer incarnation I say Postgres SQL
(post-gress see-qwell) rather than postgreS-Q-L...
I don't really mind if the man pages get edited as if I ever choose to
read them to my 4 year old son I will swap in the generic name, on the
fly. But we are not up to that point yet - my son is still learning
about grep. ;-)
I fully appreciate what the name is designed to convey but it does not
roll off the tongue...so I kinda like Thomas' decision to stick with
the more generic term - and the more poetic.
Cheers,
Tom
------- North Richmond Community Mental Health Center -------
Thomas Good MIS Coordinator
Vital Signs: tomg@ { admin | q8 } .nrnet.org Phone:
718-354-5528 Fax: 718-354-5056
/* Member: Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility */