Thread: Re: [HACKERS] 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
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
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
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
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