Sybase Releases Free Enterprise Database on Linux 386
Tassach writes "Sybase announced today that they are releasing a free (as in beer) version of their flagship database for Linux. The free version is limited to 1 CPU, 2GB of RAM, and 5GB of data, which is more than adequate for all but the most demanding applications. This release provides a very attractive alternative to Microsoft SQL Server, and gives developers and DBAs an extremely powerful argument to use against the adoption of Microsoft-based solutions. For those who are unfamiliar with the product, Microsoft's version of Transact-SQL is nearly identical to Sybases's. This high degree of similarity makes porting applications between the two platforms very easy. Sybase is supported by numerous open-source projects, including sqsh (SQL shell), FreeTDS, and SybPerl."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:4, Interesting)
Smart move (Score:1, Interesting)
They will be the 'oracle' of linux. Of course this is first impressions, I haven't used Sybase, or Postgresql - only oracle, mysql, mkcoi and db2 (oh that toy database, from a company in redmond?)
Anyone had experience with Sybase ?? Anyone using Postgresql for really heavily loaded DB?
Any real differences in todays markets? (patch reliability, support)
I am not a db administrator.
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:2, Interesting)
the sybase offer is useless.
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:5, Interesting)
Where I'm working, we use MS SQL Server an awful lot. And we write an awful lot of code that uses it. We don't spend any time reading source, or trying to find holes / improvements to it. We're too busy.
They're giving you the product for free, but you don't want it because you can't have the source.
I'm sure they'll miss you.
When they had enough... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Limited size makes it worthless (Score:2, Interesting)
How do they count processors? (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never looked at Sybase and have no clue how it works; especially their licensing . .
I'm assuming if I have a true multiproc system, it's only going to utilize one physical proc . .
Anyone have the dirt, I couldn't find a detailed link on the limitations other than the single blurb that was in the original post.
For those wondering why Transact SQL is so similar (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to be a Sybase DBA and still dable with it a bit. It's a very nice db, and at one time was a real contender against Oracle. It still has a very strong footing in the Financial sector as it was deemed to be faster than Oracle. In todays world of cheap hardware and spare cpu cycles I don't think that's quite as important.
Similar move from Oracle/IBM will follow very soon (Score:5, Interesting)
Front End...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Take an example of when an individual's age suggests this individual is an infant. In this case, I would immediately disable the widget that receives anything to do with children since an infant cannot have children. There is much more...all in the name of business logic. Cb..
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:multi-write replication? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm guesing that Sybase's marketing plan is the usual release the main product for free, get people hooked, and charge them for everything else so I think you'll have to pay for it.
Re:For those wondering why Transact SQL is so simi (Score:2, Interesting)
This is good stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
While I'm a pgsql myself, the more the merrier. As long as there are many differend dbms's we'll all be safe, because homogenicy is the root of all evil.
This will hopefully help Sybase stay in buisness longer thanks to the increased popularity it will give them, which therefor is good for me as a pgsql user.
Simply because improvements caused by competition and the lack of common ground for root exploits.
Now, if only MySQL would just die we would all be better off
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:3, Interesting)
I also still dont get it. we converted from MsSQL to postgreSQL easily. a simple program converted all data over a weekend (3 seperate databases with over 10Gb data in them) and the software changes were extremely minimal.. SQL syntax differences are not difficult.
Yuo cant simply point your app at the new database and let it rip anyways, changes have to be made to your apps no matter what DB you switch to.
Re:Nearly Identical? (Score:1, Interesting)
A new version of MS SQL would come out, we'd hold off... a new version of Sybase would come out, we'd grab the library from that and install, then upgrade our MS SQL servers (the previous Sybase library couldn't connect to newer MS SQL servers)
To note... the library that came with Sybase was meant to connect to Sybase DB servers, not MS SQL servers, but worked none the less. (I guess I should comment that we used the Linux based library to connect to the MS SQL servers, if a new version of MS SQL came out, we could no longer connect to them. Until Sybase released a new version of their library... meant to talk to Sybase DB servers)
And of course, I have no idea how compatible they are now. (and of course, this was just a networking interface compatibility)
Re:Linux only? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sybase and MSSQL both come from the same roots and so making an MSSQL application work with Sybase under Linux may be less of a gargantuan effort than, say, postgresql under any platform.
Oh (Score:2, Interesting)
Dual core chips ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is HyperThreading treated as a dual CPU ?.
And if you treat them differently , they are still a single socket chip, so why the discrimination ?.
Express vs. Developer edition (Score:3, Interesting)
The "developer" edition has been available for a couple of years, and comes with a lot of the "extra" features turned on (such as Java in the database), but is limited to one engine and 25 user connections. It's also a version that you can't use for production purposes. It is available for a number of platforms (Windows, Linux, Solaris).
The new "Express" edition is (AFAIK) only available on linux, does not have the 25 user connection limits but instead has a disk space limit, and is usable in a production environment.
Michael
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:3, Interesting)
PostgreSQL has had support for stored procedures and triggers for quite some time now.
it's a DB that you really need to keep an eye on from time to time. Lots of people are still touting that it does not have stored proceedures and usually those people are simply talking without knowing.
it works quite well and the link above is the first one I could find on google that detailed it.
I can find more when I'm not surfing and posting from my Zaurus on the way into work.
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Linux only? (Score:2, Interesting)
My 2 cents on Sybase vs. MS SQL Server (Score:1, Interesting)
Sybase works - No doubt about it. We had much better performance on an 8-way Solaris box vs. DB2.
In terms of code compatibility with Microsoft - it is close - extremely close even to this day. That's the nice thing about Microsoft stealing the Sybase code all those years back - it takes a lot of originality to subvert the database.
Some posters have noted that it's not hard to port a DB from MS SQL Server to {database x} That's true. BUT - the real thing to note here is T-SQL (Transact SQL) and the stored procedure implementation. If your Microsoft database has a boatload of T-SQL code written up over time (and most do) then the compatibility betwen Microsoft and Sybase is very good. Any MS T-SQL developer will almost immediately understand Sybase syntax. In fact most of the syntactical differences I have seen in the past involve the fact that Sybase has more options on each command due to their UNIX implementation. This includes things like parallel processing, etc.
I would not have any issues recommending a migration from MS-SQL Server to Sybase from a code standpoint. it would be the most efficient in terms of ease of conversion IMHO.
Now, WRT market share - that is true. Sybase made some bad missteps with (a) trusting Microsoft and (b) putting out a really bad release about 6 months too early (I think it was release 10). The 3-4 ish percent market share number is true. An important note though is that Sybase has about 40-50% of the Japanese and Chinese market share (this number is off the top of my head - corroborate it yourself) - so they are certainly not going to go away soon.
Just my opinion. Every database has its strengths and weaknesses - Sybase has a small footprint, solid performance, has run on *Nix forever, has mediocre marketing, and poor marketshare.
Bill.
Re:Sybase skills seriously marketable (Score:4, Interesting)
My point, or at least one of them, was that if you are looking at learning a new DBMS, and your selection critera includes marketability of the skill set, Sybase is a poor choice compared to Oracle and DB2.
Microsoft SQL Server is the DBMS leader on Windows platform. If that's your target platform, learn it. Oracle is the leader on Unix platforms. DB2 is Oracle's strongest challenger in this area. If you're looking at commercial DBMS on Linux, I think DB2 is the skillset to acquire. And, they make it relatively easy because you can download DB2 UDB for no charge. Sybase is respectable, but from a career perspective, marketability favors, imho, in this order: Oracle, DB2, Microsoft SQL Server, Sybase.
All, as I said imHo.
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (Score:3, Interesting)