Received: from wallace.ece.rice.edu (root@wallace.ece.rice.edu [128.42.12.154]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07150 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 16:33:21 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from reedstrm@wallace.ece.rice.edu) Received: by wallace.ece.rice.edu via sendmail from stdin id (Debian Smail3.2.0.102) for hackers@postgreSQL.org; Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:32:26 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1999 15:32:26 -0500 From: "Ross J. Reedstrom" To: hackers@postgreSQL.org Subject: Re: Pronunciation of "PostgreSQL" (was: Re: [HACKERS] New man pages) Message-ID: <19990809153226.B21737@wallace.ece.rice.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.95.3i In-Reply-To: ; from J. Michael Roberts on Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 02:51:02PM -0500 On Mon, Aug 09, 1999 at 02:51:02PM -0500, J. Michael Roberts wrote: > The only thing I hate about PostgreSQL is that it's hard to type with all > that mixed case. I confess that I've always pronounced it "postgres" > anyway, so there! > > The point of a name is to be distinctive and somewhat descriptive. > Postgres suffices to set the product off from other database systems. > There's no real need for the SQL to be in the name. Even Microsoft, in > their eternal marketing battle, doesn't make a point of writing AccesSQL. > Well, that might be because MS-Access... isn't! Their SQL server product, however is called,... SQL Server! Anyone else get cheesed off how MS seems to always try to co-opt generic words and turn them into ProductNames(tm)? Word? Access? SQL? In my own little rebellion, I make a point of prefixing MS- whenever I speak or write about their products. Ross -- Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer Computer and Information Technology Institute Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005