4 ms·

NB: it is not "AWS Babelfish". It is (currently) "Babelfish for PostgreSQL". https://babelfish-for-postgresql.github.io/babelfish-for-postgresql/ https://babel

by _msw_ 6y ago

NB: it is not "AWS Babelfish". It is (currently) "Babelfish for PostgreSQL". https://babelfish-for-postgresql.github.io/babelfish-for-postgresql/ https://babelfish-for-postgresql.github.io/babelfish-for-pos... Can the title of this post be changed to remove "AWS" please?

dang 6y ago
The opening paragraph of the article says " Amazon AWS announced Babelfish" and links to https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/want-more-postgresql-you-just-might-like-babelfish/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/want-more-postgresql... from the AWS blog. This all seems accurate to me. Is there some other reason why we should take AWS out of the title? Branding is not a reason that HN readers would support, and I think if we took AWS out for that reason, the community would accuse us of trying to obscure the origins of the project. Internet people are trigger-happy about this kind of thing, and too quick to accuse us of serving $BigCo agenda as it is.
- _msw_ 6y ago
  I think we are trying to establish the brand of this project in these early days, and to have that brand distinct from AWS. I see this like "Mozilla" was separate from "Netscape" in their early days [1] (note, this link will not work when the referrer is from HN. Archive link provided for convenience [2]). It is a project that AWS is sponsoring and stewarding, but from what I currently know, I think the intent is for it to be community-centric in the long term. If successful, Babelfish will grow a community, and work harmoniously as an extension of PostgreSQL. And including "AWS" in the brand of the project may hamper the efforts to build a community around it (in addition to complications of using a brand / trademark like "AWS" in an open-source project). The TL;DR is: "AWS" is not part of the branding of Babelfish for PostgreSQL, and that is intentional. The reasons for this aren't about obscuring the origins or initial sponsorship of the work, but are rather about establishing a separate identity. [1] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2016/10/they-live-and-the-secret-history-of-the-mozilla-logo/#post-13248461:~:text=With%20the%20launch%20of%20Mozilla.org%2C%20I,to%20some%20degree%20from%20Netscape%20itself https://www.jwz.org/blog/2016/10/they-live-and-the-secret-hi... [2] http://archive.is/UMMCx http://archive.is/UMMCx
  - mattashii 6y ago
    AWS is currently keeping Babelfish closed (Apache 2.0-licenced as it may be, no code has been published, making it little better than ordinary proprietary software), so I see no reason to not add the 'AWS' to its name as of this moment, as thats the only place you can get and use Babelfish. Whenever that situation changes, my standpoint will likely change as well.

by _msw_ 6y ago

dang 6y ago

The opening paragraph of the article says " Amazon AWS announced Babelfish" and links to https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/want-more-postgresql-you-just-might-like-babelfish/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/want-more-postgresql... from the AWS blog. This all seems accurate to me. Is there some other reason why we should take AWS out of the title? Branding is not a reason that HN readers would support, and I think if we took AWS out for that reason, the community would accuse us of trying to obscure the origins of the project. Internet people are trigger-happy about this kind of thing, and too quick to accuse us of serving $BigCo agenda as it is.

_msw_ 6y ago
I think we are trying to establish the brand of this project in these early days, and to have that brand distinct from AWS. I see this like "Mozilla" was separate from "Netscape" in their early days [1] (note, this link will not work when the referrer is from HN. Archive link provided for convenience [2]). It is a project that AWS is sponsoring and stewarding, but from what I currently know, I think the intent is for it to be community-centric in the long term. If successful, Babelfish will grow a community, and work harmoniously as an extension of PostgreSQL. And including "AWS" in the brand of the project may hamper the efforts to build a community around it (in addition to complications of using a brand / trademark like "AWS" in an open-source project). The TL;DR is: "AWS" is not part of the branding of Babelfish for PostgreSQL, and that is intentional. The reasons for this aren't about obscuring the origins or initial sponsorship of the work, but are rather about establishing a separate identity. [1] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2016/10/they-live-and-the-secret-history-of-the-mozilla-logo/#post-13248461:~:text=With%20the%20launch%20of%20Mozilla.org%2C%20I,to%20some%20degree%20from%20Netscape%20itself https://www.jwz.org/blog/2016/10/they-live-and-the-secret-hi... [2] http://archive.is/UMMCx http://archive.is/UMMCx
- mattashii 6y ago
  AWS is currently keeping Babelfish closed (Apache 2.0-licenced as it may be, no code has been published, making it little better than ordinary proprietary software), so I see no reason to not add the 'AWS' to its name as of this moment, as thats the only place you can get and use Babelfish. Whenever that situation changes, my standpoint will likely change as well.