 

> -----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.

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:42:47 -0000
"Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
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


Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:55:54 +0100
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
Dave Page wrote:

> 
>
>  
>
>>-----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.
>
>  
>

(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.

cheers

andrew







Dave Page wrote:

 

  

-----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.

  


(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.

cheers

andrew
Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:14:06 -0500
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
"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

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:37:58 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org 
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


12 Mar 2004 10:49:35 -0500
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
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


Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:50:54 +0100
"Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <jtv@xs4all.nl>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
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


12 Mar 2004 10:56:40 -0500
Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
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

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:56:53 -0800
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
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

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:20:00 -0800
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
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

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:26:22 -0800
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
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

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 09:28:23 -0800
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
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

Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:41:39 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>
Re: [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
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

Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:21:10 -0500
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
Re: The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org