Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
--- David Garamond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: --snip -- > > Also, we're targetting the developers right? Please do not consider > ourselves as being too stupid to differentiate between postgresql.org > -- snip -- IMO this point of view is a short-sighted and narrow one. In addition to trying to bring a more structured and developed infrastructure to 3rd party developers this should also ease the difficulty many non-developers have in finding related software to the PostgreSQL project. This fact as well as the others should be taken into consideration when making the decision on which route to go. Chris Ryan __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 01:02:00PM -0600, Frank Wiles wrote: > > As for the "length" of the URL, I think any developer or user > of PostgreSQL is knowledgeable enough to take advantage of browser > bookmarks. :) I've heard this said a several times now, but that doesn't make me feel any better. I frequently find myself in situations where I *must* get to my project site from a memorized URL, and clicking through to it is a luxury I can ill afford. I travel. Sometimes I'm dependent on slow lines and/or other people's machines. For instance, whether I will be able to respond promptly to new support requests and bug reports over the entire month of May this year will depend partly on that ability. Apart from that, we could do with some public attention and that's where catchiness matters. Jeroen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is
> > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain
> > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ...
>
> I agree we don't want .postgresql.org, as that is likely to
> risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to
> .projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the only
> objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too
> long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection.
>
> Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by
> dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both
> .pgfoundry.org
> .pgfoundry.postgresql.org
> point to the same place?
>
I hate to be the fly in this ointment, but wouldn't
.projects.postgresql.org be better? especially if you could
then point people to projects.postgresql.org as the main place to start
looking for projects related to postgresql.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > > > > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by > > > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both > > > .pgfoundry.org > > > .pgfoundry.postgresql.org > > > point to the same place? > > Sounds good to me if it's doable via DNS. DNS wise its easy ... if anything, we could extend the 'dns gen' script we are using for the mirrors to auto-gen the DNS for the projects too ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
Tom, > > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by > > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both > > .pgfoundry.org > > .pgfoundry.postgresql.org > > point to the same place? Sounds good to me if it's doable via DNS. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both > .pgfoundry.org > .pgfoundry.postgresql.org > point to the same place? no objection here ... my only object is/was the length issue Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:36:47 -0500 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... > > postgresql.net is available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we > > are keeping that domain"clean" for any future stuff we want to do > > with the core project ... > > I agree we don't want .postgresql.org, as that is likely to > risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to > .projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the > only objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is > too long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection. > > Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by > dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both > .pgfoundry.org > .pgfoundry.postgresql.org > point to the same place? My first vote would have been for postgresql.net, but I think .projects.postgresql.org makes the most sense. If I wasn't "in the know" I wouldn't associate .pgfoundry.(pgfoundry|postgresql).org with a PostgreSQL related projects by looking at the URL only. As for the "length" of the URL, I think any developer or user of PostgreSQL is knowledgeable enough to take advantage of browser bookmarks. :) I'm definitely against using 'pgfoundry.org' as I believe sub-projects should all fall under the currently used postgresql.org domain. Another thing to think about is search engine placement. Most search engines give higher listings to keywords that are in the domain name. While people will search for 'postgres' and/or 'postgresql' no one is going to come up with 'pgfoundry' on their own. - Frank Wiles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://frank.wiles.org - ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ... I agree we don't want .postgresql.org, as that is likely to risk name conflicts. However, that objection doesn't apply to .projects.postgresql.org, or variants of that. So far the only objection I've heard to that sort of setup is "the domain name is too long", and as others have pointed out, it's a weak objection. Since we do already own pgfoundry.org, could we satisfy everybody by dual-naming the project sites? That is, have both .pgfoundry.org .pgfoundry.postgresql.org point to the same place? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to > > the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult > > find the subproject in the first place. > > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ... I hope there is heavy integration between the two, otherwise anyone who doesn't read this forum will be very confused. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 13:30, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Rod Taylor wrote: > > > > > Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to > > > the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult > > > find the subproject in the first place. > > > > the projects site will not be under postgresql.org ... postgresql.net is > > available for it, but not postgresql.org ... we are keeping that domain > > "clean" for any future stuff we want to do with the core project ... > > I hope there is heavy integration between the two, otherwise anyone who > doesn't read this forum will be very confused. there was never any question about integration between the two ... only the URL that ppl will go to to get to the projects pages ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 11:52, Jeroen T. Vermeulen wrote: > On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0600, Thomas Swan wrote: > > > > foundry.postgresql.org? > > Been through that one... Too long when you have to add project name as > well. I don't understand why. Presumably the postgresql.org website will have a search for it, or it'll be a link, or it'll be a bookmark. How many people actually type in the full url anymore? Heck, when I goto the postgresql website I do a search in google for "postgres" and slam the "I'm feeling lucky" button. Having all PostgreSQL related material under one domain is beneficial to the project. Our big issue isn't the domain is too long, it is difficult find the subproject in the first place. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will > > succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure > > that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is > > like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features > > and/or price ... > > > Really? What about BMW, Volvo or Mercedes? What about them? My point is that as long as we market/advertise the *site*, the URL to get there isn't going to matter to anyone ... only that they can find it ... its a branding issue, not a 'how to get there' issue ... hell, in most cases, ppl are going to click on the link from www.postgresql.org without even looking at what the URL itself is ... Sorry, car analogy was a bad one in that case :) Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 10:43:34AM -0600, Thomas Swan wrote: > > foundry.postgresql.org? Been through that one... Too long when you have to add project name as well. Jeroen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
> My feeling is that we want people to consider these projects as closely > tied to the Postgres community and so postgresql.something is just right. > I can see there are different opinions out there though... > foundry.postgresql.org? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 10:37, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:42:47PM -, 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
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs. pgfoundry.org
[ I'm pushing Robert's comment over into the pghackers thread... ] Robert Treat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wasn't going to force the issue just for my own sake... but ISTM Tom, Peter, > myself and possibly others were all confused somewhat by the switch. > Anyway... the only real point that I have about the whole thing is that > people used to complain that gborg was too nebulous a name (ie. whats a > gborg?) and people didnt know to look at it, or were confused as to what its > purpose was. the idea of projects.postgresql.(org|net) seem like a real easy > way to make it crystal clear as to what exactly was going on at that site. > By making it pgfoundry.org, i guess it is clear as to its purpose as far as > project hosting, but it loses some of its ties to postgresql, to the point > where I think folks will wonder if this is an independent site or if it has > the backing of the greater postgresql community. I tend to think that would > be a step back... I think that last is really the crux of the issue. Josh observed that whatever the site name is, it will be the task of the advocacy group to "market" it with the correct public perception. But choosing the right name will surely make it easier to control the perception. What we're really arguing about here, IMHO, is the perceived "distance" between the domain names for the core project and the other projects. If they're too different then it will be very hard to get people to see the projects as related to PostgreSQL, no matter what marketing efforts we try. OTOH if they're too similar that may confuse things in other ways. My feeling is that we want people to consider these projects as closely tied to the Postgres community and so postgresql.something is just right. I can see there are different opinions out there though... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features and/or price ... Really? What about BMW, Volvo or Mercedes? Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly begin:vcard fn:Joshua D. Drake n:Drake;Joshua D. org:Command Prompt, Inc. adr:;;PO Box 215;Cascade Locks;Oregon;97014;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Consultant tel;work:503-667-4564 tel;fax:503-210-0034 note:Command Prompt, Inc. is the largest and oldest US based commercial PostgreSQL support provider. We provide the only commercially viable integrated PostgreSQL replication solution, but also custom programming, and support. We authored the book Practical PostgreSQL, the procedural language plPHP, and adding trigger capability to plPerl. x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.commandprompt.com/ version:2.1 end:vcard ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Gavin M. Roy wrote: > I think having a pgfoundry.postgresql.net/org is good, but it should > have its own identity, pgfoundry.org for the main url gets my vote for > what it's worth. I like the shortness myself ... IMHO, the domain name isn't the make/break of whether going to GForge will succeed ... the success will be a matter of marketing it, and making sure that its project are well known ... personally, focusing on the domain is like focusing on the name of a car when you buy it, not on its features and/or price ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [pgsql-www] [HACKERS] The Name Game: postgresql.net vs.
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, Tom Lane wrote: > "Jeroen T. Vermeulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Here's another idea: couldn't we have a subdomain for the projects, as in > > ".forge.postgresql.org"? Or would that be too long? > > That would be okay with me ... I'd go for "too long" myself ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
