While its true that there are some things that are available in other countries that aren't in the US (the VW Beetle was still made to early 70's spec in Mexico for decades after it went away elsewhere - to provide affordable vehicles) there are other factors to consider. The main one being that the average US consumer has more $$ to spend than the average consumer elsewhere in the world (there are, of course, small exceptions, but the total disposable income in such places is still tiny in comparison).
Despite the moaning and groaning that goes on in regards to the US economy, we are head and shoulders above the rest of the world insofar as our economic might. Part of that is businesses taking a long look at what will be profitable and what won't, because despite some poster's comments that its all about the $$... it is. The whole point of being in business is not to make cool toys, but to stay in business by making money.
Sure companies like Verizon and Tmobile leave a bad taste in your mouth when they sell you a locked phone, but the best way to make your objection known is to vote with your feet. Don't use their service, and convince others not to as well and make sure they give the right reason when they tell the provider why they are leaving.
I also must say that I can't agree with one of the poster's coments about people using cell phones till they croak. Everyone I know has at least 3 or 4 old phones piling up in drawers because new plans with new providers typically come with new phones.
In response to the fact that many other places have much cooler phones and seem to stay on the bleeding edge of technology: In places like Japan for example they simply don't have the room for all the technology we have. The multiple PCs per household, everyone and their dog having a laptop, etc. For many people elsewhere in the world their phones have to do double or triple duty as home pc, laptop and phone.
While I agree that in a business environment the name of a product being the sole reason (though the author didn't specifically indicated it was his sole reason) not to choose something may be irresponsible, one must consider that people in general make base assumptions about all sorts of things from their initial impressions.
Take for instance how much time and money goes into marketing brands (of anything) and how fiercly a brand name is guarded once its established.
The problem with PostgreSQL as a name is twofold. Words in the English language that end with gres are rare, in day to day conversation you could probably go weeks without uttering one (digress or regress are ones you may use often, but they are obviously a bit different). Since our thinking and hearing patterns tend to form basic mappings of percieved words to words already known or in common internal use, many people actuall think 'postreg'. The eyes then inform the brain that what they see does not match 'postreg' and the brain then adds 'confusing' to the list of things about Postgres.
While you may poo poo the people and their internal mental correlations, if you want something to have wide appeal you have to consider things like that. The name needs to be short, simple and easy to remember and relate.
The second item is that it is pronounced Post-gres-Q-L. For the people who pronounce SQL as sequel, they think the word as Post Gre Sequel. The brain then thinks: 'what the heck is gre?'
If you think of the names behind other DB products: MySQL, Access, Oracle, MSSQL, etc... (with MSSQL being a possible exception) the names themselves introduce no pronounciation, word association or sylabic issues.
Task 1 complete. People can talk about these products without having to stop and explain how to pronounce the name. I'd imagine that's one of the first lessons in marketing.
Slashdot Mirror
While its true that there are some things that are available in other countries that aren't in the US (the VW Beetle was still made to early 70's spec in Mexico for decades after it went away elsewhere - to provide affordable vehicles) there are other factors to consider. The main one being that the average US consumer has more $$ to spend than the average consumer elsewhere in the world (there are, of course, small exceptions, but the total disposable income in such places is still tiny in comparison). Despite the moaning and groaning that goes on in regards to the US economy, we are head and shoulders above the rest of the world insofar as our economic might. Part of that is businesses taking a long look at what will be profitable and what won't, because despite some poster's comments that its all about the $$... it is. The whole point of being in business is not to make cool toys, but to stay in business by making money. Sure companies like Verizon and Tmobile leave a bad taste in your mouth when they sell you a locked phone, but the best way to make your objection known is to vote with your feet. Don't use their service, and convince others not to as well and make sure they give the right reason when they tell the provider why they are leaving. I also must say that I can't agree with one of the poster's coments about people using cell phones till they croak. Everyone I know has at least 3 or 4 old phones piling up in drawers because new plans with new providers typically come with new phones. In response to the fact that many other places have much cooler phones and seem to stay on the bleeding edge of technology: In places like Japan for example they simply don't have the room for all the technology we have. The multiple PCs per household, everyone and their dog having a laptop, etc. For many people elsewhere in the world their phones have to do double or triple duty as home pc, laptop and phone.
While I agree that in a business environment the name of a product being the sole reason (though the author didn't specifically indicated it was his sole reason) not to choose something may be irresponsible, one must consider that people in general make base assumptions about all sorts of things from their initial impressions.
Take for instance how much time and money goes into marketing brands (of anything) and how fiercly a brand name is guarded once its established.
The problem with PostgreSQL as a name is twofold. Words in the English language that end with gres are rare, in day to day conversation you could probably go weeks without uttering one (digress or regress are ones you may use often, but they are obviously a bit different). Since our thinking and hearing patterns tend to form basic mappings of percieved words to words already known or in common internal use, many people actuall think 'postreg'. The eyes then inform the brain that what they see does not match 'postreg' and the brain then adds 'confusing' to the list of things about Postgres.
While you may poo poo the people and their internal mental correlations, if you want something to have wide appeal you have to consider things like that. The name needs to be short, simple and easy to remember and relate.
The second item is that it is pronounced Post-gres-Q-L. For the people who pronounce SQL as sequel, they think the word as Post Gre Sequel. The brain then thinks: 'what the heck is gre?'
If you think of the names behind other DB products: MySQL, Access, Oracle, MSSQL, etc... (with MSSQL being a possible exception) the names themselves introduce no pronounciation, word association or sylabic issues.
Task 1 complete. People can talk about these products without having to stop and explain how to pronounce the name. I'd imagine that's one of the first lessons in marketing.