[kcdev]

Agreed. I actually didn't give it much attention for the longest time simply because of the name (I'm talking years - just checked it out a few months ago although I heard of it probably a couple years ago). Now that I've taken the time to check out the project, I'm sold and will definitely use it in place of Postgres, etc. But, the name does turn off some newbies. Eventually it may not matter as all good brands eventually just become familiar.

[cocktailpeanuts]

One of the reasons I'm put off by their name is because I know that they know a lot of people don't like the name. Them knowing this AND keeping at it means they don't care about losing out on tons of users because of this trivial matter, which means they are not being professional. When it comes to something like a database system, I want to use something that's built by a professional team.

When I say they don't feel professional I don't mean their tech is unprofessional. In fact I'm sure their tech is excellent and that's why they're so confident enough to keep at this name. But what I'm saying is I don't believe that the executives or whoever is in charge of the business is reliable enough to keep the business stable.

I don't know about you, but I don't feel comfortable buying a piece of enterprise software or service from a company whose CEO thinks it's OK to have a brand name that turns off tons of users and don't care.

[andrewchambers]

turns off idiots, sure, I honestly can't believe the stupidity of these bikeshed comments.

[cocktailpeanuts]

That's not how bikeshedding works

[andrewchambers]

Instead of discussing the merits of the business model, or technology, they are discussing what it is called, because it is easier.

It is not bikeshedding in the traditional sense, but the spirit is the same.

[cocktailpeanuts]

With that reasoning, every single discussion thread that contains criticism is bikeshedding.

Bikeshedding is for people who care about a project in one way or another. In their mind they're contributing because they're providing feedback, but overall they're just wasting time because their "work" is far from significant, which means they are not really achieving what they think they're achieving.

In this case most people who complain about their name are not their users. Some actually do want to be excited about their tech and want to be their users but they are not. Which means none of these have any intention of trying to make this project better. I am not their employee nor their shareholder. Why should I care about them?

"Bikeshedding" only applies to people who have stakes in a project or care about the success of the project because they are foolishly wasting time on something that doesn't matter when they actually think they are contributing.

This is not the case in this case. I do not care about cockroachdb and I am not trying to contribute to their success. I just bitch about it because i think it's a stupid decision. This is not bikeshedding.

[andrewchambers]

It's like criticizing the hairstyle of your doctor. Do you complain when users report 'bugs' to you too?

My first reaction when I heard that name was to think - 'must be designed to be hard to kill'.

[pryelluw]

The name is a crucial part of the brand, which itself is the core of the business. That's what Im discussing. I understand if you disagree, but the discussion has merit based on facts.

[pryelluw]

Some names generate negative brand equity, which I feel is the case here. It would be simple to verify with an a/b test.

I know it sounds like I'm being an ass, but this comes from my desire to see them succeed.

[lamlam]

On one hand the name had put me off from wanting to look at it when I first heard about it. But at the same time, it's also the reason I looked, since DB technologies are a dime-a-dozen these days with generic sounding names.

I would still prefer another name though.

[jcrben]

I expect it will conjure an unpleasant instinctive response for a long time.