Yeah the constant obsession with the name is so weird that it really makes me wonder if there's some astroturfing campaign going on. I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but I mean seriously, the name is not that weird and the tech seems very interesting. The first time I saw comments about it I thought, "huh, yeah I guess that is sort of a weird name now that you mention it". The second time u thought, "ok I've heard this before". The third time I thought, "hmm, this is pretty tedious". And this is the 7th or so time now and I just think, "wtf is going on here?".
Really? You think it's astroturfing that makes people dislike a name with "Cockroach" in it? Do you think there are many people think "cockroach" has positive connotations?
The name is one thing that anyone can have an opinion about, the average person can't really speak to the internals of the database, but anyone can look at the name and say "I don't like it and wouldn't want to say I have 'cockroachdb' in my stack".
The very fact that it comes up every time there's a story about the database should be a pretty strong sign that the name is overshadowing the product. If it was named after an animal that doesn't have nearly universal disdain like "Koala-db" or "dragonfly-db", or even "ant-db", then I doubt people would be bringing up the name every time it's mentioned
git is also a really bad name, and I've had awkward conversations with hiring managers about it in the past ("You want someone with experience in... what?!"). ("git" is a mild oath in British English, for those who don't know. I think Linus did know.)
But the reason that people don't complain about the name every time git is brought up is because git comes up in conversation a lot. CockroachDB is also a really bad name - I do agree - but the reason almost every thread about it on here is partially derailed by chatter about its name is, I think, simply because it doesn't come up all that often.
That's stretching it a bit too far. Just because it's a "mild oath" in British english, doesn't mean it's bad name for rest of the world. I for one have never heard about it and don't think git is a bad name at all.
Cockroach, on the other hand, I don't know of anyone who would get a good image in their mind hearing it.
So you think if people keep saying cockroach a lot, suddenly cockroach will magically become some nice clean creature in people's mind? That's like saying if you keep saying "ShitDB", someday people will think it's a good name.
> So you think if people keep saying cockroach a lot, suddenly cockroach will magically become some nice clean creature in people's mind?
Something like that. People will associate the name with the database, not the insect. This does happen, over time you almost forget the the original meaning.
Some examples: when somebody says Oracle or Delphi, I'm thinking databases and Pascal successor, not ancient Greek stuff. When somebody says Pascal, I'm thinking programming language not the French mathematician. Fedora is a Linux distribution (and also a type of hat), Twitter is a social network (and also a type of bird vocalization) and so on.
You really think those analogy is relevant to this case? All the examples you pointed out all have either neutral or positive connotations. What you should have presented was any example of (if any) a successful tech brand with a name that brings strong negative feelings.
Cockroach not only has negative connotation, but the negativity scale is pretty strong.
Bring me a single person who will say they get good emotion when they hear "cockcroach". Sometimes you need to be stubborn about your business decisions, but if you're being stubborn about naming your business after a word most of the population will get negative feelings the first time they hear, then you're doing it wrong. It's not even a subjective thing, with a bad name, people are less likely to talk about your brand than if you had a positive name.
OK, how about: I would not like ants crawling my room the same way as I would not like cockroaches crawling my room. But I don't mind using Apache Ant.
Or, for a not-exactly-elegant name: Ubuntu 4.10 Warty Warthog. You are launching a brand-new Linux distribution, why not call it after a warty wild pig. Worked OK for them.
Ant and warthog do not universally evoke negative emotion. In many cultures ants are in fact associated with creatures that work hard, some people when they hear ants they think of the emergent behavior their colonies manifest. Warthog is more of a neutral term. Hearing that word gives me neither good or bad emotion, so it really depends on the context you use it.
"Cockroach" on the other hand, like i said, I know of absolutely NO one who would get positive emotion upon hearing that word. Just like "rape", or "nazi" don't evoke positive emotion for anyone.
I'm honestly curious: what does it matter to you? You keep comparing it to very extreme things and generally seem to care a lot, but I just don't get what the big deal is. "Cockroach" is just not such an offensive word that it's worth getting so worked up about.
I'm saying that if CockroachDB came up in discussion frequently, people would lose interest in complaining about its name, because after a period of time, the number of people who'd been exposed to it and previous conversations about its name would have eclipsed the number of people thinking, "Gosh, what an awful name! I wonder if anyone else has had this revelation, I better post about it right now!"
You're missing my point, because you're talking about AFTER this reaches that status.
I'm saying these people are doing their own technology disservice by making the brand difficult to talk about and take seriously.
It's their choice, but there's a difference between "stupid names don't matter, look at Google!" and "stupid names don't matter, look at FuckDB! RapeDB! CockroachDB!" (I know i'm going extreme with this but just trying to get the point across, that "stupid" names and "offensive" names are completely different things)
If you still disagree with me, I don't really have much intention of trying to persuade you nor care much about this company succeeding. I'm just saying it's a bad business decision to make it hard for your customers to advocate for your product. If there was a company with the same technology and they had a normal name, they would probably get much better traction (assuming that their tech is unique and useful).
Seriously? I reflexively think about specific, often negative, things when I read about a lot of topics. That doesn't mean those thoughts have to be shared. I think a good rough guideline is trying to only comment if that comment has a chance of advancing the discussion, answer somebody's questions, or asks for more information. Restating repeatedly made comments doesn't do that.
