On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:15 PM, James Hayton <[email protected]> wrote: > > I disagree regarding the source of the confusion. Sure, there is stuff that > Apache CouchDB can do better as you mention, but I think the source of the > problem is that there are two different products with Couch in their name, > where one, CouchBase, used to ship the other, CouchDB, but now they don't. I > am getting confused just typing this :) > > Mongo has a bunch of companies with mongo in the name (hosting, etc), but it > doesn't confuse anyone since its all about one product, (mongodb). > > CouchBase screwed up here IMHO. If they no longer wanted to be involved with > CouchDB when the merger happened they should have chosen a name that didn't > include the word couch. Now with that being said, as a user of CouchDB I am > very appreciative of everything the CouchOne guys did for the project and I > was upset to see them go in a different direction after the merger. I don't > think they planned on redirecting their interests elsewhere when they merged > so I can understand what happened here. It doesn't really matter. It has > happened and the Apache CouchDB project needs to do what it can to fix it for > the sake of the project. > > This is very real problem that won't go away easily. I dont think better > descriptions are going to solve the problem, but that is an option. Legally > going after CouchBase would not be how I would handle it either. Those guys > did a ton for this project and I think that they would even admit they > screwed up in hindsight now that they are no longer developing/supporting > CouchDB or even an API compatible product. > > The only other real option is rebranding Apache CouchDB, which is radical and > unlikely to happen, but it's an option that might be better than the other > two options. > > To summarize, there are really only 3 options: > > 1) CouchBase Changes Their Name Either Because They Want To Or Us Pushing The > Issue. > 2) Apache CouchDB Rebrands > 3) Explain The Differences Better On Both Sides > > Which one we go with I really don't care. I just care about this project and > want it to thrive, gain new users/interests, etc... so that it will still be > around in 10 years. > > What I would like to see is Apache CouchDB get 1.2 put the door and then work > hard on getting some cool features added to coincide with a complete > rebranding: > > Features Such As > - Clustering/BigCouch > - In Memory Couch Add On With Compatible API ( I dunno just throwing stuff > out there. ) Allow Me To Have High Performance Option That I Can Replicate To > Disk Later > - Auto Compaction > - Querying With Start & End keys for posted queries > - Multiple linked docs per view row > - Modularize the code base > - Many other things I have in my head :) > > > Add all that to existing CouchDB, call it KillerDB, AwesomeDB, whatever and > then get back to relaxing :) > > Again, just my thoughts. Just trying to get the wheels churning on > alternatives to getting in some spat with CouchBase, continuing to confuse > everyone, etc... > > James >
couchdb is a trademark that preexists to couchbase. Why should it go ? - benoit Feb 20, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Mikeal Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Confusion over what CouchDB is has more to do with a lack of clarity on the >> website and conveyed by the project itself than anything Cloudant, >> CouchBase, or any other company has done building products around it. >> >> Renaming it does not solve this, it just creates a new name/entity people >> understand even less. >> >> Until not that long ago this was on the website as some form of architecture >> explanation: >> >> http://damienkatz.net/pics/img-080128190327-0001.jpg >> >> A great visualization if you already know what CouchDB is but only confusing >> if you don't. >> >> -Mikeal >> >> On Feb 20, 2012, at February 20, 201210:46 AM, James Hayton wrote: >> >>> Maybe a crazy idea, but since the end result of any legal stuff would be >>> somebody changing the name of something, why doesn't Apache CouchDB just re >>> brand itself? I mean we need a website makeover, etc... Why don't we just >>> ditch the name and come up with something better with a new vision, new >>> leadership, etc... Lets put a few features in that people have been asking >>> for, include the big couch code (clustering), create a new website and call >>> it something different. (CouchDB 2.0 Becomes AwesomeDB lol) >>> >>> I understand that alot of people have quite a bit invested in the name >>> CouchDB, at this may not be something realistic, but this just seems like >>> at least another option we should discuss. >>> >>> Just my .02. >>> >>> James >>
