Обсуждение: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
Folks, As we discussed a couple weeks ago, Marc, Andrew, Tim Perdue, Chris Ryan and I are testing implementing GForge in place of GBorg for associated projects for PostgreSQL. One thing which was suggested initially was that this new project hosting site be at www.postgresql.net with projects being <projectname>.postgresql.net. However, some of the "porting" team felt that it would be confusing for people who typed in www.postgresql.net to be presented with the GForge interface, and suggested that we use the domain after what we'll be calling the new Tool, namely pgFoundry, thus putting stuff at www.pgFoundry.org and <projectname>.pgfoundry.org. So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter. I'm throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can indicate whether they: A) Favor www.postgresql.net B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless. Thanks for your time! -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > > So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter. I'm > throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can > indicate whether they: > > A) Favor www.postgresql.net > B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org > C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless. I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the better choice. The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between "Postres, the database" and "related projects." Jeroen
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> A) Favor www.postgresql.net
>> B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org
>> C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless.
> I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the
> better choice. The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the
> project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between
> "Postres, the database" and "related projects."
Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the
projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining
at *.postgresql.org. I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or
not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear
that the domains are related. pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:01:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the > projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining > at *.postgresql.org. I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or > not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear > that the domains are related. pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random. Agree with the last bit, but I really feel that the difference between postgresql.org and postgresql.net is too subtle--at least for people who don't work with either very often. Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long? Jeroen
I think having a pgfoundry.postgresql.net/org is good, but it should have its own identity, pgfoundry.org for the main url gets my vote for what it's worth. Gavin Josh Berkus wrote: >Folks, > >As we discussed a couple weeks ago, Marc, Andrew, Tim Perdue, Chris Ryan and I >are testing implementing GForge in place of GBorg for associated projects for >PostgreSQL. > >One thing which was suggested initially was that this new project hosting site >be at www.postgresql.net with projects being <projectname>.postgresql.net. > >However, some of the "porting" team felt that it would be confusing for people >who typed in www.postgresql.net to be presented with the GForge interface, >and suggested that we use the domain after what we'll be calling the new >Tool, namely pgFoundry, thus putting stuff at www.pgFoundry.org and ><projectname>.pgfoundry.org. > >So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter. I'm >throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can >indicate whether they: > >A) Favor www.postgresql.net >B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org >C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless. > >Thanks for your time! > > >
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in
> "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long?
That would be okay with me ...
regards, tom lane
Jeroen, > > Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in > > "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long? Hmmm ... wouldn't that be rather awkward with the projects with longer names? http://orapgsqlviews.foundry.postgresql.org That's 39 characters, not including the http ... To speak up, I'd rather have either options (A) or (B) thank this option. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Tom Lane wrote: >"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes: > > >>On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 03:14:10PM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: >> >> >>>A) Favor www.postgresql.net >>>B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org >>>C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless. >>> >>> > > > >>I'm not crazy about the name pgfoundry, but otherwise I think it's the >>better choice. The "www." problem could be circumvented by renaming the >>project, perhaps, but I think it's best to keep a distinction between >>"Postres, the database" and "related projects." >> >> > >Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the >projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database remaining >at *.postgresql.org. I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or >not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear >that the domains are related. pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random. > > > I'm really going to try hard to stay out of all the hoohaa that seems to be boiling ... I got involved arse-end foremost because I was stupid enough to tell Josh that he could call on me if he needed things done in Perl or Java, and he took sufficient license from that to inveigle me into a lot of other stuff, none of which looks remotely like Perl or Java. :-). I do enough webbish stuff by day and would far rather spend *my* time in a modest way making postgresql even better than it is. There are 2 name issues - the base site and the project sites. If I am web surfing and I go to foo.net or www.foo.net I expect (other things being equal) to go to the main page for organization foo. Going to some other page for the foo organization is just a bit weird. Now I know there are exceptions, millions of them, but they always jar slightly. That's why we settled on pgfoundry.net. There is no reason, however, that the individual projects could not live under both domains, i.e. projname.postgresql.net and projname.pgfoundry.net. This is very doable. As for "pgfoundry" - the name isn't set in concrete. In fact it is entirely trivial to change. Suggest another that might be better. cheers andrew
On Mar 12, 2004, at 9:07 AM, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:01:47PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Actually, proposal (A) does provide such a separation: notice that the >> projects would go under *.postgresql.net, with the core database >> remaining >> at *.postgresql.org. I am not sure if that will provoke confusion or >> not, but I think I like it better than pgfoundry because it is clear >> that the domains are related. pgfoundry seems a bit, um, random. > > Agree with the last bit, but I really feel that the difference between > postgresql.org and postgresql.net is too subtle--at least for people > who > don't work with either very often. Just to speak up (as an avid lurker), I agree with Jeroen that this distinction is quite subtle and may cause confusion. Some may even expect the two to resolve to the same site, as a lot of popular sites own .com/.net/.org, all resolving to the same site. This can be read as support for *.pgfoundry.org, *.postgresql.org, or *.pgfoundry.postgresql.org. *.pgfoundry.org is short and clearly distinguished from postgresql.org *.postgresql.org is short, and clearly associated with postgresql.org (of course!), but there's no clear distinction that the former gborg projects are separate from, say, developer.postgresql.org or techdocs.postgresql.org. Is this distinction important? Maybe not? *.pgfoundry.postgresql.org is longer, clearly associated with postgresql.org, and clear that it's a distinct part of postgresql.org Michael Glaesemann grzm myrealbox com
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes: > > Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in > > "<project>.forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long? > > That would be okay with me ... I'd go for "too long" myself ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Gavin M. Roy wrote: > I think having a pgfoundry.postgresql.net/org is good, but it should > have its own identity, pgfoundry.org for the main url gets my vote for > what it's worth. I like the shortness myself ... IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features and/or price ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> > IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will > succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure > that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is > like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features > and/or price ... Really? What about BMW, Volvo or Mercedes? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Вложения
Michael Glaesemann wrote: > Just to speak up (as an avid lurker), I agree with Jeroen that this > distinction is quite subtle and may cause confusion. Some may even > expect the two to resolve to the same site, as a lot of popular sites > own .com/.net/.org, all resolving to the same site. Speaking of .com vs .net vs .org, anyone remember the mysql.com vs mysql.org fiasco? Anyway, if I can vote, I'll vote for postgresql.net (for the lack of better choices). I agree with Tom that "pgfoundry" is kind of random. It's not apparent at all that it's a PostgreSQL entity. Besides, Tom & Marc is already listed as the registrant of several domains including postgresql.com. Why not use them? Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org and postgresql.net... If people don't like to type long names, we can always do automatic redirection between <projname>.postgresql.net, postgresql.org/projects/<projname>, <projname>.projects.postgresql.org, etc. Or even perhaps use tinyurl :-) -- dave
> However, some of the "porting" team felt that it would be > confusing for people > who typed in www.postgresql.net to be presented with the > GForge interface, > and suggested that we use the domain after what we'll be > calling the new > Tool, namely pgFoundry, thus putting stuff at www.pgFoundry.org and > <projectname>.pgfoundry.org. Can't the frontpage for the GForge interface be changed slightly? If the frontpage was redesigned to state clearly that it's a "community development site", and "go here for the site about the main postgresql proejct", that should take care of the users that typed in postgresql.net instead of .org. Then the sites themselves would be whatever.postgresql.net as is usual with gforge. FWIW, I agree with those who feel that pgfoundry.org is not really intuitive to go when looking for postgresql stuff, if you can't tell that from above :-) //Magnus
Josh Berkus wrote: >Folks, > >As we discussed a couple weeks ago, Marc, Andrew, Tim Perdue, Chris Ryan and I >are testing implementing GForge in place of GBorg for associated projects for >PostgreSQL. > >One thing which was suggested initially was that this new project hosting site >be at www.postgresql.net with projects being <projectname>.postgresql.net. > >However, some of the "porting" team felt that it would be confusing for people >who typed in www.postgresql.net to be presented with the GForge interface, >and suggested that we use the domain after what we'll be calling the new >Tool, namely pgFoundry, thus putting stuff at www.pgFoundry.org and ><projectname>.pgfoundry.org. > >So far, only 4 people, total, have expressed opinons on the matter. I'm >throwing this on Hackers so that members of projects we will be hosting can >indicate whether they: > >A) Favor www.postgresql.net >B) Favor www.pgfoundry.org >C) Don't care as long as the porting is relatively painless. > > > Isn't gforge a pgsql related project itself? So I'd suggest: www.postgresql.org -> main PostgreSQL site gforge.postgresql.org -> gforge interface site <projectname>.postgresql.org -> gforge hosted projects Regards, Andreas
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andreas Pflug [mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de] > Sent: 12 March 2004 13:57 > To: josh@agliodbs.com > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org > > > Isn't gforge a pgsql related project itself? > So I'd suggest: > > www.postgresql.org -> main PostgreSQL site > gforge.postgresql.org -> gforge interface site > <projectname>.postgresql.org -> gforge hosted projects The problem with that approach is that our 'official' sites then get lost amongst the project sites. We need some distinction between the core project sites and other project sites - istm that a different domain is the only way to do that. Regards, Dave.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:42:47PM -0000, Dave Page wrote: > > We need some distinction between the core project sites and other > project sites - istm that a different domain is the only way to do that. Okay, then how about postgres-extra.net, or forpostgres.net? Saying Postgres instead of PostgreSQL takes out a bit of that extra length and it's lots easier to pronounce. We've been through this whole what- shall-we-call-it thing months ago and IIRC the upshot was that the short version of the name is perfectly acceptable and much catchier. Here's a chance to use it! Even shorter and catchier would be "pgprojects.net" IMHO, but that again stretches the connection with PostgreSQL. Jeroen
Dave Page wrote: <blockquote cite="mid03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B889F68E@mail.vale-housing.co.uk" type="cite"><pre wrap=""> </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">-----Original Message----- From: Andreas Pflug [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de">mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de</a>] Sent: 12 March 2004 13:57 To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:josh@agliodbs.com">josh@agliodbs.com</a> Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org">pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org</a> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org Isn't gforge a pgsql related project itself? So I'd suggest: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.postgresql.org">www.postgresql.org</a> -> main PostgreSQL site gforge.postgresql.org -> gforge interface site <projectname>.postgresql.org -> gforge hosted projects </pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""> The problem with that approach is that our 'official' sites then get lost amongst the project sites. We need some distinction between the core project sites and other project sites - istm that a different domain is the only way to do that. </pre></blockquote><br /> (breaking previous rule) I agree.<br /><br /> Also, the gforge people would prefer us *not* touse a name that includes gforge, because of the risk of confusion. That's how we came up with "pgfoundry" in the firstplace.<br /><br /> cheers<br /><br /> andrew<br />
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:42:47PM -0000, Dave Page wrote:
>> We need some distinction between the core project sites and other
>> project sites - istm that a different domain is the only way to do that.
> Okay, then how about postgres-extra.net, or forpostgres.net?
> Saying Postgres instead of PostgreSQL takes out a bit of that extra length
> and it's lots easier to pronounce. We've been through this whole what-
> shall-we-call-it thing months ago and IIRC the upshot was that the short
> version of the name is perfectly acceptable and much catchier. Here's a
> chance to use it!
Well, if you want to think along those lines, I believe that we (PGDG)
currently hold these domain names:
postgresql.org
postgresql.com
postgresql.net
postgres.org
postgres.com
It looks like some domain squatter has his tentacles on postgres.net
:-(. We are not doing much with any of these except redirecting to
postgresql.org.
You could make a case that postgres.org for the projects would be the
perfect complement to postgresql.org for the core.
After looking at this list I'm sort of inclined to the idea that we
should *not* use postgresql.net for much of anything ... that will just
help drive traffic to that squatter at postgres.net.
This also brings up the thought that if we do want to use pgfoundry.org,
we'd better register pgfoundry.net and pgfoundry.com before someone
else does.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 10:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:42:47PM -0000, Dave Page wrote:
> >> We need some distinction between the core project sites and other
> >> project sites - istm that a different domain is the only way to do that.
>
> > Okay, then how about postgres-extra.net, or forpostgres.net?
>
> > Saying Postgres instead of PostgreSQL takes out a bit of that extra length
> > and it's lots easier to pronounce. We've been through this whole what-
> > shall-we-call-it thing months ago and IIRC the upshot was that the short
> > version of the name is perfectly acceptable and much catchier. Here's a
> > chance to use it!
>
> Well, if you want to think along those lines, I believe that we (PGDG)
> currently hold these domain names:
> postgresql.org
> postgresql.com
> postgresql.net
> postgres.org
> postgres.com
> It looks like some domain squatter has his tentacles on postgres.net
> :-(. We are not doing much with any of these except redirecting to
> postgresql.org.
>
> You could make a case that postgres.org for the projects would be the
> perfect complement to postgresql.org for the core.
>
> After looking at this list I'm sort of inclined to the idea that we
> should *not* use postgresql.net for much of anything ... that will just
> help drive traffic to that squatter at postgres.net.
>
> This also brings up the thought that if we do want to use pgfoundry.org,
> we'd better register pgfoundry.net and pgfoundry.com before someone
> else does.
>
yug... if we go with postgres.org|net|com we are just asking for the
press to keep referring to the product as postgres instead of
postgresql, so i'd strongly be against that idea.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:37:58AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Well, if you want to think along those lines, I believe that we (PGDG) > currently hold these domain names: [...] > postgres.org This is the one I was silently rooting for, but figured was too good to be true. > You could make a case that postgres.org for the projects would be the > perfect complement to postgresql.org for the core. Still _slightly_ confusing, but I think the plain and simple idea of a prominent banner was mentioned. We can have them both ways to avoid all confusion. I say go for it! Jeroen
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 10:14, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andreas Pflug [ mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de > <mailto:pgadmin@pse-consulting.de> ] > > Sent: 12 March 2004 13:57 > > To: josh@agliodbs.com <mailto:josh@agliodbs.com> > > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <mailto:pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org> > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org > > Isn't gforge a pgsql related project itself? > > So I'd suggest: > > > > www.postgresql.org <http://www.postgresql.org> -> main PostgreSQL > site > > gforge.postgresql.org -> gforge interface site > > <projectname>.postgresql.org -> gforge hosted projects > > > > > > The problem with that approach is that our 'official' sites then get > > lost amongst the project sites. > > > > We need some distinction between the core project sites and other > > project sites - istm that a different domain is the only way to do that. > > (breaking previous rule) I agree. > > Also, the gforge people would prefer us *not* to use a name that > includes gforge, because of the risk of confusion. That's how we came up > with "pgfoundry" in the first place. > maybe pgsqlfoundry is a better compromise? Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will > > succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure > > that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is > > like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features > > and/or price ... > > > Really? What about BMW, Volvo or Mercedes? What about them? My point is that as long as we market/advertise the *site*, the URL to get there isn't going to matter to anyone ... only that they can find it ... its a branding issue, not a 'how to get there' issue ... hell, in most cases, ppl are going to click on the link from www.postgresql.org without even looking at what the URL itself is ... Sorry, car analogy was a bad one in that case :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Robert, > maybe pgsqlfoundry is a better compromise? No, too long. People'd end up calling it pgFoundry anyway. Besides, Gavin Roy already designed us a nice "pgFoundry" logo. ;-) -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, if you want to think along those lines, I believe that we (PGDG)
> currently hold these domain names:
> postgresql.org
> postgresql.com
> postgresql.net
> postgres.org
> postgres.com
> It looks like some domain squatter has his tentacles on postgres.net
> :-(. We are not doing much with any of these except redirecting to
> postgresql.org.
Looks like he hasn't been squatting all that long:
Domain Name: POSTGRES.NET
Created on..............: Wed, Aug 07, 2002
Expires on..............: Sat, Aug 07, 2004
Record last updated on..: Fri, Oct 31, 2003
Also note the expiration date. Maybe we can convince him to let us have
the domain. Is it worth asking?
> You could make a case that postgres.org for the projects would be the
> perfect complement to postgresql.org for the core.
>
> After looking at this list I'm sort of inclined to the idea that we
> should *not* use postgresql.net for much of anything ... that will just
> help drive traffic to that squatter at postgres.net.
Hmmm, perhaps you're right. Too bad, I was going to vote for
postgresql.net myself. If we could get control of postgres.net that
option would definitely get my vote.
> This also brings up the thought that if we do want to use pgfoundry.org,
> we'd better register pgfoundry.net and pgfoundry.com before someone
> else does.
I agree with the others who have said pgfoundry.org is not clearly
enough linked.
Joe
Joe, > Looks like he hasn't been squatting all that long: > Domain Name: POSTGRES.NET > > Created on..............: Wed, Aug 07, 2002 > Expires on..............: Sat, Aug 07, 2004 > Record last updated on..: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 > > Also note the expiration date. Maybe we can convince him to let us have > the domain. Is it worth asking? Hmmm ... please let Core handle this. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> writes:
> Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider
> ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org and
> postgresql.net...
I can never remember whether the current site is postgresql.{com,org,net} even
now. Making postgresql.net one thing and postgresql.org another thing is a
recipe for confusion.
I would say follow the same model as modules.apache.org, pear.php.net, etc.
I don't understand the "too long" complaint at all. a) Nobody's forcing us to
use a subdomain for each project, and b) nobody's actually going to type
"slony.gborg.postgres.org" or "gborg.postgres.org/slony" anyways. They'll go
to "gborg.postgres.org" and type "slony" into the search box.
In any case, complaining about "too long" when each component means something
specific only means you want to leave off one of those meanings. Either the
name of the project, the distinction from the main site, or the association
with postgres.
Ie, Using "postgres.org" vs "postgres.net" or leaves the user with no clue
which site he's on or even that there is another site. Using something like
"pgfoundry.com" leaves the user with no idea the web site is related to the
postgres.org web site.
--
greg
Josh Berkus wrote: >>Looks like he hasn't been squatting all that long: >> Domain Name: POSTGRES.NET >> >> Created on..............: Wed, Aug 07, 2002 >> Expires on..............: Sat, Aug 07, 2004 >> Record last updated on..: Fri, Oct 31, 2003 >> >>Also note the expiration date. Maybe we can convince him to let us have >>the domain. Is it worth asking? > > Hmmm ... please let Core handle this. > Sure -- that's why I posted the idea instead of calling or emailing myself ;-) Joe
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > This also brings up the thought that if we do want to use pgfoundry.org, > we'd better register pgfoundry.net and pgfoundry.com before someone else > does. I did all three simultaneously for exactly that reason ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Greg Stark wrote: > I would say follow the same model as modules.apache.org, pear.php.net, > etc. note that having projects.postgresql.org is cool ... its just the projects subpages that I'm objecting too ... the easiest is to have http://projects.postgresql.org point to the same as http://www.postgresql.net, and then have all the projects piggy back on *.postgresql.net ... I have no hassles with that ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:37:58AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > This also brings up the thought that if we do want to use pgfoundry.org, > we'd better register pgfoundry.net and pgfoundry.com before someone > else does. And .info? And .biz? And whatever other unrestricted nonsense things there are out there? (I know my employers would dearly love everyone who has a name they want to protect to register it in every registry on earth, but I have a feeling that if the industry gets its way, that's going to become impractical soon.) A -- Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca The plural of anecdote is not data. --Roger Brinner
--- David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com> wrote:
--snip --
>
> Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider
> ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org
>
-- snip --
IMO this point of view is a short-sighted and narrow one. In
addition to trying to bring a more structured and developed
infrastructure to 3rd party developers this should also ease the
difficulty many non-developers have in finding related software to the
PostgreSQL project. This fact as well as the others should be taken
into consideration when making the decision on which route to go.
Chris Ryan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com