Re: I am being interviewed by OReilly

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Nothing.  We even have audio files on the website so there is
> no question on how to pronounce it.  Some folks just aren't
> happy unless they can change what doesn't need changing is
> all.  I guess it's their way of contributing.

I don't understand some of the animosity I have seen towards
what I consider a positive change. It obviously does need
changing, otherwise so many people would not be discussing it.
An audio file on the website is not going to help people who
are reading the word inside text somewhere. The very fact that
such an audio file even needs to exist should be telling us
something. It was created because people were having a hard time
pronouncing it. Saying that people can pronounce it properly
because there is an audio file smacks of circular logic.

> 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".

Sorry, but the shortcut "Postgres" is alive and kicking. Look
anywhere, even in the mailing lists. The default user is
"postgres" not "postgresql". Another point is that postgres
fits in the 8.3 naming schema, which is not really used anymore,
but does serve as a fairly good rule of thumb. A product name
should be 8 letters or less (Linux, Apache, Windows, Sybase,
Oracle, Ingres, Sybase, MySQL, Apache, tinydns, sendmail, qmail,
iptables, etc.) (Microsoft products are an exception of course,
but they have the marketing power to name something
"throatwobblermangrove" and still have the masses purchase it :)

I might agree somewhat with the "don't break tradition" argument
if there had been a concerted effort from the start to
*dissuade* people from using the word "postgres", but as far as
I can tell, most people involved with Postgre[sS][QL] don't
really care which one is being used, and all other things being
equal, tend to simplify it to the shorter form, especially
when talking out loud.

I've given presentations on Postgres to technical and
non-technical people, and always have to throw in a section
at the start about the name - how to pronounce the "long form",
how it came about, and to not worry about which term I use
within the presentation, since they are synonymous. I'd rather
spend that time extolling some of the better virtues of the
product, rather than trying to explain why we smushed a word
and an acronym together into something awkward to pronounce.
Perhaps that's the best way to put it: the word is not difficult
to pronounce, but it is awkward.



Greg Sabino Mullane  greg@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200207081020

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: http://www.turnstep.com/pgp.html

iD8DBQE9KaCJvJuQZxSWSsgRAloRAKD4tbIititzKXI08kEpAFSkeT/YrgCfcyDa
0UOzfOknsIEi7B1kfdTFFGU=
=ADDF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----