Thread
-
Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 1999-01-01T10:49:56Z
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Considering that there is up to this day no terminally universal way to > pronounce 'Linux' (unless you know Swedish :), I don't think that's worth > worrying about. Personally, I find PostgreSQL very pronouncable though. Me too: Post-Gres-Q-L ..
-
Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2000-04-09T18:33:40Z
Why is someone (presumably from southern California) always changing all mentions of "PostgreSQL" in the documentation to "Postgres"? Wouldn't it be more productive the other way around? -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
-
Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> — 2000-04-11T04:59:07Z
> Why is someone (presumably from southern California) always changing all > mentions of "PostgreSQL" in the documentation to "Postgres"? Wouldn't it > be more productive the other way around? :) The document conventions are mentioned in the introductory section on "Notation". I'm trying for a consistant presentation within the documents, and had settled on "Postgres" as a readable, pronounceable form for our project. I try to keep "PostgreSQL" for introductory sections and book and chapter headings. I suppose that those conventions could be up for discussion (as is everything else wrt Postgres^HSQL) but I'm not sure that changing this particular convention buys us anything other than heavier docs. To my mind, this s/w is the only survivor of the Postgres family, and there is no need to distinguish it from other, older, relatives. - Thomas -- Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu South Pasadena, California -
Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Peter Eisentraut <e99re41@docs.uu.se> — 2000-04-11T11:26:01Z
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote: > The document conventions are mentioned in the introductory section on > "Notation". I am aware of that but I interpreted it as "You should read all occurences of 'Postgres' as 'PostgreSQL' because I haven't finished changing them yet." > I'm trying for a consistant presentation within the documents, IMHO, it would be much better if the documentation was actually consistent with the software package it is describing, which is definitely called PostgreSQL, comes in a postgresql-7.x.x.tar.gz file, has a web site at www.postgresql.org, and commercial support from PostgreSQL, Inc., owners of the PostgreSQL trademark. > and had settled on "Postgres" as a readable, pronounceable form for > our project. Considering that there is up to this day no terminally universal way to pronounce 'Linux' (unless you know Swedish :), I don't think that's worth worrying about. Personally, I find PostgreSQL very pronouncable though. > I try to keep "PostgreSQL" for introductory sections and book and > chapter headings. ... more inconsistencies ... :( > I suppose that those conventions could be up for discussion (as is > everything else wrt Postgres^HSQL) but I'm not sure that changing this > particular convention buys us anything other than heavier docs. If "heavy" means more complicated then I disagree. If "heavy" means larger, then you can define an entity &pgsql; as '<productname>PostgreSQL</productname>'. ;) > To my mind, this s/w is the only survivor of the Postgres family, and > there is no need to distinguish it from other, older, relatives. Postgres was a different product. Continuing to mention it might confuse users. PostgreSQL is a new and improved product and it has SQL as its query language. I don't know what went on when the name was chosen but that's long gone and now it should be used. FreeBSD documentation does talk about 'FreeBSD' and not 'BSD', 'Unix', or 'operating system', and it will continue to do so even if its siblings in various categories were to cease. And 'FreeBSD' is equally unreadable and unpronouncable as 'PostgreSQL'. :) It's not a big deal but I just don't think that *enforcing* "Postgres" in (parts of) the docs when it's not used anywhere else is reasonable. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
-
Re: Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com> — 2000-04-11T13:52:49Z
On Fri, 1 Jan 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Considering that there is up to this day no terminally universal way to > > pronounce 'Linux' (unless you know Swedish :), I don't think that's worth > > worrying about. Personally, I find PostgreSQL very pronouncable though. > > Me too: Post-Gres-Q-L .. Hmmm. I read an article/interview on Linus and he specifically stated that it's pronounced "lee-nooks". The article's gone right now but I'm pretty sure he had the accent on the first sylable. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com http://www.pop4.net 128K ISDN from $22.00/mo - 56K Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking Online Campground Directory http://www.camping-usa.com Online Giftshop Superstore http://www.cloudninegifts.com ========================================================================== -
Re: Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> — 2000-04-11T14:27:54Z
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Considering that there is up to this day no terminally universal way to > > pronounce 'Linux' (unless you know Swedish :), I don't think that's worth > > worrying about. Personally, I find PostgreSQL very pronouncable though. > > Me too: Post-Gres-Q-L .. Added to first FAQ item. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
-
Re: Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
jon@kanji.com — 2000-04-11T15:46:31Z
Please excuse the intrusion. As one who has been following this list since its inception and who vaguely remembers the name change discussion of 3, 4 ... how many years ago ... let me say that PostgreSQL IS difficult to know how to pronounce. I remember thinking at the time (and my son was making a few minor contributions to the code then) that the new name good sense logically, but was a stumbling block to introducing the program to the world at large. Of course it's a fait accompli now. The specific stumbling block is the capitalization. Unlike the pronunciation of Linux, where it is merely a question of how to pronounce the vowels, and everyone can do that naturally in their own most comfortable way, with postgreSQL the natural tendency to pronounce the miniscule portion as one 'word' is always in conflict with the tendency to begin the second 'word' at the capital S. So one wants to say 'postgres', (which to me has always immediately conjured up an antonym of 'progress', but that's another story) but is stopped short, as it were, at 'postgre', an awkward place to stop, at least to native English speakers. Maybe if it were written postgresQL, it would be easier to pronounce correctly when first met. Then the QL would be given some meaning relevant to the program and the sQL would still bring to mind the relationship with SQL but in a not quite so blatant way. Anyway, I predict that there will always be a problem with the pronunciation of postgreSQL it as it stands now. (Of course it's easy to pronounce once you know how to pronounce it.) Jon -- Jon Babcock <jon@kanji.com>
-
Re: Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Henry B. Hotz <hotz@jpl.nasa.gov> — 2000-04-11T17:57:45Z
At 7:27 AM -0700 4/11/00, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >> > Considering that there is up to this day no terminally universal way to >> > pronounce 'Linux' (unless you know Swedish :), I don't think that's worth >> > worrying about. Personally, I find PostgreSQL very pronouncable though. >> >> Me too: Post-Gres-Q-L .. > >Added to first FAQ item. Maybe I'm too late, but can I cast a vote for the Southern California convention? I regard the switch to SQL query language as a historical artifact which neither requires ongoing emphasis, nor justifies disinheriting ourselves from our historical roots. We can easily support the postgres.org domain name as an alias for the same machines as postgresql.org, and likewise in the .com domain. I presume UCB already has the trademark for the postgres name. Signature failed Preliminary Design Review. Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated. h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
-
Re: Re: Postgres vs. PostgreSQL
Marc G. Fournier <scrappy@hub.org> — 2000-04-11T18:14:40Z
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Henry B. Hotz wrote: > At 7:27 AM -0700 4/11/00, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> > >> > Considering that there is up to this day no terminally universal way to > >> > pronounce 'Linux' (unless you know Swedish :), I don't think that's worth > >> > worrying about. Personally, I find PostgreSQL very pronouncable though. > >> > >> Me too: Post-Gres-Q-L .. > > > >Added to first FAQ item. > > Maybe I'm too late, but can I cast a vote for the Southern California > convention? About 3 years too late ...