111–120 of 366 posts
I think the name "Cockroach" was a really poor decision from a marketing standpoint. The team intended to convey durability, since cockroaches can live through anything. But when I think of a cockroach, I think, gross, disgusting, etc.
A name like CockroachDB catches my eye the same way Yandex's Cocaine PaaS makes me click to find out what the hell that product actually is.
Since there's a little side riff about the name going on I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. Personally I love the name. I think it does a great job of conveying the spirit of the project and provides unlimited pun opportunities. Plus it's memorable, just like a real life roach encounter. Unfortunately I'm sure some people will discriminate against your DB on the basis of name alone. That's ludicrous, but that's our s…
I'm quite frankly amazed that Go's runtime is able to support a database with such demanding capabilities as CockroachDB!
I think the name "Cockroach" was a really poor decision from a marketing standpoint. The team intended to convey durability, since cockroaches can live through anything. But when I think of a cockroach, I think, gross, disgusting, etc.
If you make technology stack decisions based on your feelings rather than what the product actually does, then you shouldn't be employed as a decision-maker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like, err, GIMP? What is it with Spencer Kimball and naming things that gets people so upset? It's not like other company or product names are that good; we're just used to them. Some high profile tech companies: - Google: some propellerhead big number joke (hey, I have a Phd and I don't know offhand how big a googleplex is...) - Alphabet: Really? That out of ideas? - Amazon: Some hot snake and insect-infested j…
There's bad name, and then there's repulsive name. All the examples you mention fall under "bad name", and it's not even objectively bad, I actually think they're great names, so it's subjective. And NONE of them are repulsive. Then again, if you insist cockroaches are lovable creatures I have nothing more to say.
My argument was not that they are good or bad, but rather that we've come to associate positive things with the companies in question, and then we post-hoc come up with explanations why they names are good etc.
> Then again, if you insist cockroaches are lovable creatures I have nothing more to say.
I don't think they are lovable, no. But they are an evolutionary success story; they've been around for hundreds of millions of years, long before humans. And they'll be here after we humans have extincted ourselves in some nuclear holocaust/massive environmental disaster/pick your favorite apocalyptic scenario/.
And if you manage to squish one, there's hordes of em left; just like I'd like my DB to be, so actually I think it's a very good name! :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're going to have a hard time convincing nontechnical managements they need to go with Cockroach instead of Oracle. It's unfortunate the world works that way, but nevertheless, it works that way. It could be the best database in the world. They did a real disservice to themselves by naming it after a bug people typically associate with filth, disease, and germs. Would you use something called TurdDB or AssDB?
it's not at all unfortunate that the world works that way. What's really unfortunate is the founder of this seemingly great database system has decided to not care about how human psychology works. Here's an Wikipedia excerpt on cockroach: > They feed on human and pet food and can leave an offensive odor.[60] They can passively transport pathogenic microbes on their body surfaces, particularly in environments such as…
Since there's a little side riff about the name going on I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. Personally I love the name. I think it does a great job of conveying the spirit of the project and provides unlimited pun opportunities. Plus it's memorable, just like a real life roach encounter. Unfortunately I'm sure some people will discriminate against your DB on the basis of name alone. That's ludicrous, but that's our s…
I agree with all your points. That being said MongoDB, Aerospike and Hadoop have all gotten good traction even with their slightly silly names.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of just downvoting, how about refuting my claim? I'm seriously curious what is the disagreement. These guys already established atomic clocks are unnecessary. Very interested in which use cases require them.
Am I wrong in remembering that the HN guidelines used to say that you should not downvote someone's comment simply because you disagreed with it? I went looking, and I don't see that in the current guidelines. I could be wrong about it being there before, but I was almost certain that it was at one point. Seems like it used to say that you should only downvote comments that you think don't contribute anything of valu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you make technology stack decisions based on your feelings rather than what the product actually does, then you shouldn't be employed as a decision-maker.
Feelings become reality. People care about what things are called. You just don't care because it doesn't bother you. But if it was a topic you were sensitive about or something you feel is inappropriate, you would feel otherwise. Everyone has their limits of what is going too far. It's almost as if we live in a society with people from different backgrounds. What this really hits on is subjective relativism, and tha…
If you are in that role, and you permit the name of a vendor to trump the actual merits of the vendor's product, you should never have been trusted with decision-making authority in the first place, and any competitors who don't harbor your particular emotional hangups will get the better of you, and you won't be long for your position anyway.
Cockroach Labs is not selling to the end-consumer. They're selling to people whose job it is to behave like Vulcans. In this particular market, it doesn't matter what the name is.