|Subject||RE: [IBDI] Re: Product name|
|Author||Claudio Valderrama C.|
> -----Original Message-----When you wrote "firebird IS the development unit of the community", what
> From: markus.soell@... [mailto:markus.soell@...]
> Sent: Sábado 28 de Abril de 2001 3:05
> > Markus, for the last time: either you push your ideas as
> > suggestions and make a difference between your beliefs and proven
> > facts or I will start feeling sincerely that you are wasting
> > bandwith.
> Since you reply here to the product name thread, I guess that's what
> you're talking about. Did I present anything as a proven fact??? I
> don't think so...
are you doing? An assertion. If you would have used "it seems that" or
another expression, things change. Just use the best words you can find. I
understand some of those issues because English is not my native language
and for example, in Spanish, both "can" and "may" are mapped to the same
> > The core FB team doesn't need to be marketing-driven; others canBut since this is not a company where marketing guys rule, people that
> > do that task; a group of people for each task.
> Sure. But the name of the product is to be used as the brand and
> therefore important for marketing. If you're trying to say that
> Firebird members working on the code don't care about marketing,
> that's a valid position. But what does it mean? It means to leave the
> choice of name to the marketing people, because the name matters for
> marketing and not for the code. However, I understand that all,
> including code workers like you, are interested in what name the
> product shall have.
write code can shout about the name they like or at least accept. And of
course, they can shout to reject a name change. In a typical company,
marketing dept decides and makes all the commercial mistakes.
> The suggested change (adding SQL at the end) is a minor one. TheSeveral months ago, IBDI list, IB-Marketing list and Mers list were flooded
> ending "SQL" is certainly not the distinctive part of the name, since
> it's used by other database makers (MySQL and PostgreSQL) as well.
> Therefore the current recognition isn't lost with this change. When
> people hear the name FirebirdSQL, their first reaction will be that
> it must be the same like the Firebird they already know.
by messages about a name change. I learned a few things: several people
pointed out that the BASE suffix is used only by desktop engines (Sybase
being the exception and DB/2 camouflaged), that SQL appears only in
MsSQLServer (plus MySQL and Postgress in its relational version) and that
the other big products have nothing to do with those BASE or SQL words:
Oracle, Teradata, Informix (now dead), Ingres, Jasmine, ObjectStore, Solid,
etc. And they live well with a name that you don't associate directly with
relational engines. You would have to read hundred of messages to see that
long discussion. I tend to agree with that idea: if you take the example of
MickeySoft, MsSQLServer suggests that it's "the [main] SQL engine" but
ironically, it's very far from the standard, so "SQL" prefix or suffix is of
no much conceptual importance.
What I found more appealing is your suggestion about a family of products
that carry the same initial word in it. Several companies do that and one
can tell easily the origin and relationship among those products.