On 10 Jul 2002, tony wrote:
> 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...
That's a definite downside, yes. On the other hand, we essentially
already have three names at the moment: PostgreSQL, Postgres, and
PgSQL. Is it better to perpetuate that confusion forever, or to
make a concerted effort to fix it and fix the problem for good?
> The whole discussion is a stupid waste of time because there is
> _nothing_ wrong with the name as it is now.
"No, you're a stupid moron because you can't see the problem."
Is this the response you're looking for? If not, I suggest you put
away your flamethrower.
> It is only causing pain and
> confusion amongst users, newcomers and developers. It is only serving to
> hurt PostgreSQL and how it is perceived.
Funny, that's the exact complaint some people have about the current
name problem.
> I just want the nutters to shut up and let us get on with something more
> serious.
"Then be quiet."
> This is not a flame - it is common sense.
To call me and others on this list a "nutter" and to call our ideas
"stupid" and a "waste of time" is not a flame? Come on now.
Anyway, feel free to flame me back and get the last word in, if you
like. I shan't be replying to you again unless you come back without the
insults.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC