Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sybase Releases Free Enterprise Database on Linux

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the everyone's-favorite-price dept.

Databases 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."

cancel ×

386 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

nig (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198813)

gers

first (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198815)

firs post

Better than PostgreSQL? (4, Interesting)

asifyoucare (302582) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198819)

Free (as in beer) is good, but the source remains closed.

Is it sufficiently better than PostgreSQL to be attractive - Is it better at all?

Can someone with experience in both platforms comment?

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (4, Interesting)

dotgain (630123) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198824)

People who just want a full featured database aren't really all that interested in the source.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (2, Interesting)

managementboy (223451) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198832)

Well I want a full featured database and would like to have the source. That makes it "people - 1".

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (5, Interesting)

dotgain (630123) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198844)

Great. What for?

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.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198833)

they are usually interested in using more than 1 cpu and just 5Gb.

the sybase offer is useless.

Dual core chips ? (4, Interesting)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199094)

Will a dual core chip be a Single CPU ?.
Is HyperThreading treated as a dual CPU ?.
And if you treat them differently , they are still a single socket chip, so why the discrimination ?.

Re:Dual core chips ? (1)

Forge (2456) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199153)

iNTEL did a lot of arm twisting on that point. It knows that soon ALL it's CPUs will be multy core and hyperthreded,

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (2, Insightful)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199038)

Most distributions can't ship the client libs for the closed source databased. Thats makes it's somewhat difficult if you like to use things like a distro shipped version of php.

We use sybase at work and I try to use freetds as client lib ehenever possible because it's easier to maintain (The ebuilds are alreay there in gentoo).

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (5, Insightful)

pmsr (560617) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198841)

You are missing the point. It makes it easy to convert from Microsoft SQL. Imagine thousands of independent software developers with an alternative to MSQL within easy reach. Their entire solution cost is now reduced, and they will sell better. At least the ones that take the chance.

/Pedro

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198911)

Vote for Pedro!

(probably lost on you if you're not geeky-quirky)

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (5, Informative)

azaris (699901) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198961)

You are missing the point. It makes it easy to convert from Microsoft SQL. Imagine thousands of independent software developers with an alternative to MSQL within easy reach. Their entire solution cost is now reduced, and they will sell better. At least the ones that take the chance.

I'm not sure so many independent software developers use MS SQL anyway, but there has for a while been a light version of MS SQL, MSDE, available for a free download [asp.net] , with most of the features of MS SQL but with similar restrictions to this Sybase offering.

But this appears to be targeted mostly at Linux developers so it's competition for PostgreSQL and the Abomination That Shall Not Be Named.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (2, Informative)

RahoulB (178873) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198968)

depends who you are selling to ... my company sells to a few (UK) local government authorities and SQL Server is a "tick in a box" on their checklists. Sybase currently isn't, but being a "brand name" will probably help it there.
Postgres doesn't even come into the equation

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (3, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198983)

Imagine thousands of independent software developers with an alternative to MSQL within easy reach.

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:Better than PostgreSQL? (4, Informative)

Gaewyn L Knight (16566) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199064)

Ah yes... but what if you are stuck on an application that you don't have access to the codebase? With this "most" ms-sql or Sybase SQLAnywhere applications can simply be told where the new datastore is and work.

We hae several POS and ERP applications on our campus that have been locked into MS-SQL or SQLAnywhere (bleh!). Yesterday after downloading sybase and getting it installed I was able to transfer and fire up test instances of 7 of the 9 applications without ever needing to ask the company that wrote it to make any changes for me.

Would I prefer these apps be FOSS... YES! We are slowly writing new versions as we get time... but it takes time and this gives us a way to save money now.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (1)

tommeke100 (755660) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199099)

> SQL syntax differences are not difficult

I disagree. Sometimes, the interpretation is totally different. Take for example: UNION. I've been working with MySQL, Sybase, Oracle, ACCESS etc... and I can tell you most of them have a different interpretation. MySQL for example casts every data type to the first statement in the UNION. Let's say you have something like (char(8) UNION char(20)), well it will cut the results of the char(20) to char(8). Other databases just give errors, some need brackets, others don't. It's more then just a trivial difference, even for standard SQL.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199118)

If you think that "SQL syntax differences are not difficult", it's because you know neither MSSQL or Postgres. MS offers many features that once you start using them, are hard to move away from. In particular, stored procs that return multiple result sets with different schemas, nested transactions and distributed transactions with DTC.

Over time OSS dbs will have these features, but not yet.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (5, Informative)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198986)

Not really. MS SQL used to be Sybase, and thus TSQL used to match. But since 6.5 Microsoft made SQL Server their own, changed the engine to be more ANSI SQL 92 Compliant (ANSI joins in Oracle? Hah), and now as SQL2005 comes over the horizon they've added more compliance with later SQL standards (although nowhere near fully compliant).

If you're expecting to take a recent Microsoft database script and run it on Sybase without any problems you're dreaming.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (1)

Baki (72515) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199073)

What is the problem with ANSI joins in Oracle?

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (1)

blorg (726186) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199093)

What is the problem with ANSI joins in Oracle?

They work now, in my experience of working with Oracle 9i, but they *are* a relatively recent innovation (introduced in Oracle 9i I think). Certainly SQL Server supported ANSI joins well before Oracle did; perhaps grandparent is remembering an older version of Oracle.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (1)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199024)

You are missing the point. It makes it easy to convert from Microsoft SQL. Imagine thousands of independent software developers with an alternative to MSQL within easy reach. Their entire solution cost is now reduced, and they will sell better. At least the ones that take the chance.

OR they could keep running their ASP.NET applications on IIS and use SQL Server 2005 Express which happens to have the 1cpu limit, 1gb memory and 4gb database and is free as in beer. You're right.. the solution cost is reduced but not in the way you intended. :)

Simon.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198905)

I worked with both and, IMO, Sybase is NOT that much better to justify restrictions like "the free [Sybase] version is limited to 1 CPU, 2GB of RAM, and 5GB of data". Does it work when it rains?!

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (5, Informative)

conejoloco (811948) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198988)

I have worked with both a few years ago (migration from Postgres 6 to Sybase 11) and sybase performance was outstanding, compared to Postgresql.
I hope postgresql performs better now.

Moreover, this is not the first time Sybase makes this offer : Sybase for Linux 11.0.3 was free to use on Linux, with no limitation.

I personnaly used it for my Web shop, as this database is not only fast and secure, but also quite easy to program with ( especially compared to Oracle ).

The only drawback of Sybase is the lack of standard administration Tools. You have to use a product like (overpriced and windows-only) Emabarcadero DBArtisan.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (1)

jadavis (473492) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199058)

PostgreSQL 6.X is ancient. PostgreSQL 7.0 was released in May 2000, over 4 years ago.

I think I can safely say that PostgreSQL is dramatically better in every aspect since the 6.X days.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (4, Insightful)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199036)

does everything that runs on Linux have to come with the source and an oss license???
I bought and paid for Textmaker for Linux and also Opera for Linux, both closed source programs. This Sybase move now means that I can download and play with a serious database. It's a smart move because it means that I will be gaining skills in programming for that database engine, skills which are seriously marketable.

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199085)

Definately beer, but beer they need a company name and phone number for, not everyone in this world has a job and a phone number.

But then I'm bitter because my download took 2 seconds got corrupted and refused any furthur download attempts :S

Re:Better than PostgreSQL? (1)

alsy (214858) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199124)

The advantage with Sybase is that MS SQL Server is based on an earlier version of Sybase - though there are now some differences, the method of accessing the database server, of doing backups and the version of SQL are either identical or so similar that it is trivial to transfer to Sybase.

Torrent (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198825)

There's a torrent availible for this at Linux Isos [linux-isoz.info] if you don't feel like contributing to the inevitable slashdot effect. I'm getting about 80kbps at the moment, hopefully this won't drop, I'll be seeding for a good few hours regardless.

Re:Torrent (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198842)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm getting about 100kbps at the moment, plenty of seeds so this should keep busy for a good while to come.
It's great to see bittorrent being used for legitimate purposes and not just copyright violation.

MOD PARENT UP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198852)

How is the parent a troll? I found his link to be both useful and informative, and not just in terms of this article, bittorrent needs to be supported and not cast down to the pits of -1.

WARNING: not safe for work (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198926)

Mr. Goatse is back with a vengance...

PARENT is a TROLL! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198934)

Don't click this link! It's a porn shock site!

Who modded this up?

Re:PARENT is a TROLL! (1, Funny)

boa13 (548222) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198944)

Who modded this up?

I did, tricked by the two positive answers. And now I'm answering you, so that my moderation gets removed.

Well done, trolls.

Re:PARENT is a TROLL! (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199116)

WHAM!Never WHAM! moderate WHAM! up WHAM! a WHAM! post WHAM! WHAM! without WHAM! checking WHAM! the WHAM! links! WHAM! WHAM! WHAM!

MOD PARENT DOWN - NOT WORK SAFE LINK. (2, Informative)

MartinG (52587) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198958)

see comment

Smart move (1, Interesting)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198826)

Sybase have made a very smart move - by association people will see thier larger user base as a sign that they are more stable, and more widely used.

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:Smart move (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198863)

"I am not a db administrator."

No shit !

Especially considering "That toy DB from Redmond" is derived from Sybase.

Re:Smart move (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198879)

As far as I know, MS SQL Server was originally based on Sybase, hence the similarity in T-SQL. Some time ago Sybase used to make the latest-1 major release for free under Linux, if I am not mistaken.
They stopped that and are coming up with this now... At least interesting as an alternative to MSDE which is also limited concerning concurrent connections and size.

Re:Smart move (4, Insightful)

lennart78 (515598) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198921)

At our company, sybase is our main supplier for database software (ASE mostly). We are slowly changing to MS-SQL, because we're slowly becoming an all M$-shop. (And I'm slowly looking for another job...)
We run Sybase on Alpha/Tru64. We've had our issues during the years, a lot of wich have been resolved by Unix-patches, so I guess Sybase as a DBMS is quite stable.
Support by Sybase however is less cause for optimism, as they recently shut down their presence in .nl. We are now serviced from out of .uk.
Sybase is, IMHO, rapidly losing their grip on the market. Existing implementations take years to rebuild on a new platform, but it is happening, and I think in a lot of places, and M$ is the main beneficiary.
The way people are using databases is changing. People want multi-tier applications, and the Sybase portfolio can't compete with M$ .NET.
Sybase should be looking at new markets, and I think this is a good move. The advantage of people being familiar with your product can work wonders, look for example at how WordPerfect got big years back.

Re:Smart move (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199079)

And I'm slowly looking for another job...

Yeah... so are the many umemployed ex-IT workers who complain they can't find a job but just aren't looking. Who do you blame for you slowly looking for another job? Bush? Maybe you should vote for Kerry and you will be able to search for a new job way faster.

Sorry, it's 7am and I'm still drunk and I think people who blame their lack of ability to get a job on the current president are complete idiots and shouldn't have jobs involving complex pieces of machinery such as computers anyways.

Re:Smart move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198920)

I'm not a db administrator either, but occassionally I have pretend I am due to layoffs. It's generally a huge pain in the arse, given the choice I'd much prefer postgres or (where possible) mysql. While I'm definately not familiar with all its features, strengths and/or quirks, there are definately too many bits where bad software engineering shows through.

Re:Smart move (4, Informative)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198947)

That company from Redmond, bought the tech from Sybase; the toy database you didnt mention is certainly capable, and is more than adequate for small-medium sites. Unless you meant Access.

And Oracle is already the 'Oracle' of linux, it was among the first enterprise DBs available, and lots of Oracle internal sites already run on RHEL.

This move by Sybase is mostly just a tease- you would probably need to buy a license if you need anything that requires Sybase's capabilities.
Even Oracle will mail you a full devkit, with the enterprise DB+all the goodies. However I cant imagine anyone using this in Production boxes.

Sybase has a nice niche among banks and some large datawarehouse-type environments. It is an order of magnitude easier if you're from an Oracle-Db2 background.

Re:Smart move (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199009)

"oh that toy database, from a company in redmond?"

Really? Have Nintendo released a DBMS for the Gamecube now? ;p

Ah, more free shit. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198847)


More free shit to play around with. It's great for them, I play around with it, I learn it.

Soon they will have another tech that knows how to operate it. A small business may end up using it so they can ditch the MS SQL stuff and move to a more robust enviroment. They hire a admin, he needs a assistant? I am aviable, and I trained myself enough to be familar with it.

Whoopie.

Then as the company grows, so will it's need. If it's a decent product then they'd definatly pay for it after using it for year or two for free.

Best damn advertising you can hope to get. Got to love it. Sure beats the snot out of ending up being another MS victom and another footnote in history:
"So and so company had a product similar to the insanely popular MS Widget. Although widely considured superior to MS's solution by a large part of the industry, MS's continued dominace of the desktop arena gave the leverage nessicary too".... blab blah blah

Did I mention I also get some free shit to play around with? (given a choice between free and Free, Free usually wins, but we'll see how it goes)

Re:Ah, more free shit. (2, Informative)

dotgain (630123) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198861)

While MS SQL Server is not free, MSDE, the MS Database Engine is.

Re:Ah, more free shit. (4, Insightful)

sr180 (700526) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198887)

MSDE is only free if you have already bought one of their Operating Systems first...

Re:Ah, more free shit. (2, Funny)

dotgain (630123) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198953)

Gee, that cuts out most of the market then, don't it?

Oh stop moaning (2, Insightful)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199101)

The thing is free whatever the motivation behind it. If you don't like it then don't use it so stop whining. What did you expect , them to say "Here , have our full database system for free, no restrictions! We've planted a money tree in our garden, we don't need sales anymore!".

Wake up to the realities of commercial life , its what keeps the worlds economy running.

Limited size makes it worthless (4, Insightful)

protektor (63514) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198855)

The limited database size of 5 gig makes it worthless to just about every Open Source web site or developer other than the very very small guys who would rather use something like MySQL or PostgreSQL instead.

How exactly is it helpful to release a free version that most people can't use in real world applications? The answer is, it isn't.

Move along people nothing to see here.

Re:Limited size makes it worthless (1)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198867)

Don't you know that the first hit is free (and small)?

Re:Limited size makes it worthless (2, Interesting)

protektor (63514) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198872)

Forgot to mention that I read somewhere the average database driven web site is an average of 10-20 gigs for most OSS type sites.

Re:Limited size makes it worthless (4, Insightful)

dotgain (630123) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198890)

How exactly is it helpful to release a free version that most people can't use in real world applications? The answer is, it isn't.

Hey, you're right. They should, like, ship it with no database size limit!. They everybody could use it, Slashdot, large enterprises, even banks!

And nobody would have to buy it! How selfish of them to give away a database that wouldn't cut it in a large enterprise.

Re:Limited size makes it worthless (1)

lewp (95638) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198992)

Yeah! Just like how nobody buys MySQL! Maybe if those losers took a hint from Sybase they'd actually be able to support themselves.

I thought the whole point of this Open Source "thing" is that you don't sell the code, but that people pay you for things associated with the code? You know, adding specific features they need, real support, superior documentation.

I mean, you can not believe in this if you like (I'm not 100% sure myself), but I don't see how this is something to get all sarcastic about; like it's so obvious that it would never work. Lots of people do think that you can make your software generally available for free and still turn a profit. Some people even think that model works better for everyone in the long run. Do you know something they don't?

Re:Limited size makes it worthless (2, Insightful)

CmdrPuto (246448) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198939)

It's not. Your mind is a bit narrowed.

These are lots of small busineses that do not have that much transactions. These companies are not willing to to buy a sophisticated db yet. So it would be nice that they will try it first.

They will have the db up to 5GB of data for free. I am sure they can upgrade when it's needed.

Re:Limited size makes it worthless (1)

SlashdotLemming (640272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199113)

Agree 100%

That resource cap makes me think that they have a non-free version waiting in the wings...

Re:Limited size makes it worthless (1)

SlashdotLemming (640272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199138)

RTFA fool, they already do

Haha! (3, Funny)

Libor Vanek (248963) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198856)

Shareware strikes OSS back!

When they had enough... (4, Interesting)

AnuradhaRatnaweera (757812) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198859)

What happenes when Sybase stops maintaining the `Free' version?

No thanks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198868)

If it isn't free (as in speech) then Sybase can take back their shit.

Nearly Identical? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198869)

Microsoft's version of Transact-SQL is nearly identical to Sybases's.

Just how nearly is it? I'd like to know in terms of things just broken enough to make finding them absolute hell.

Re:Nearly Identical? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199002)

Back at a company I worked for between 1999-2002 (or so) we used to use the library that came with Sybase to connect our linux boxes to MS SQL running on NT.

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)

How do they count processors? (4, Interesting)

millisa (151093) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198874)

When they say it is limited to one proc, do virtuals count (ie, P4 HT?)

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.

Too risky... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198876)

Closed source, no guarantees, too many limitations...

And btw, sybase sucks, especially if you're on your own without support.

Re:Too risky... (5, Insightful)

dotgain (630123) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198945)

Closed source
Not all closed source is bad. It's not like you hear of people running Solaris, Oracle and Forte getting owned every day.

no guarantees
If you buy it, I'm sure they'll guarantee and support it. This is a free trial, that you can use for an unlimited period of time

too many limitations
The limitations are clearly stated and simple: you can try it out, for as long as you like. 5 gigs is plenty to test an application on, one cpu is still enough to run a database on.

Some people actually do pay for their software. And I'm sure the same people will be more than happy to buy this DB if, after trying it out for FREE, find it satisfactory or better.

I can't believe how many whingeing morons I've seen tonight saying "Argh! no source!! ev1l!!" and "aww, only five gigs! stingy bastards, I won't be able to run my eCommerce site on _that!_"

Get real. There's plenty of free databases around that you can use, slashdot uses MySQL doesn't it? Piss off and use that.

You probably wouldn't know a real database from a hole in the ground and continue to be bewildered at why some corps spend $50k + on real databases for years to come.

Re:Too risky... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199005)

Please, good sir, enlighten us as to the reasons for using such databases.

(no sarcasm, I'm a naive bastard).

For those wondering why Transact SQL is so similar (5, Interesting)

PhatAir (468678) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198877)

MS, Sybase & Ashton Tate jointly developed the core engine up until the mid nineties at which point there was (I believe) a very acrimonious split due to some licensing argument. That was at version 4.2 and so the SQL syntax remains common between the two. Since then I'm sure there's been a certain amount of divergence (and then some!), but it theory porting should be easyish (famous last words).

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.

Re:For those wondering why Transact SQL is so simi (2, Interesting)

MaccaUK (761566) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198924)

It isn't necessarily the speed - it's also the ease of maintenance compared to Oracle. Sybase is limited but it works, while Oracle is very powerful and fiddly. Fiddly is bad when you have a lot of dataservers.

Someone set us up the BLOB (4, Funny)

beacher (82033) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198882)

All your (Sy)BASE are belong to us!

Similar move from Oracle/IBM will follow very soon (4, Interesting)

zzabur (611866) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198884)

I fact, I've been waiting for free-download Oracle/DB2 "personal database" or some limited opensource release of Oracle/DB2 for a while. This release will put much pressure to Oracle, IBM and of course, MS. This is one major strong point of Linux, which pretty much is ignored by the press. With MS solution every small piece of software is at least shareware, and while the cost might be nominal, you still have to go trough the process of buying/registering it. With Linux, you may have to buy some software, but most of the stuff you need can be found around the net, just couple of clicks away from being ready for you to use.

Re:Similar move from Oracle/IBM will follow very s (4, Insightful)

I confirm I'm not a (720413) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198990)

I fact, I've been waiting for free-download Oracle/DB2 "personal database" or some limited opensource release of Oracle/DB2 for a while.

I may be way off-base here, so apologies if I've missed the point, but Oracle have allowed free-downloads for at least a couple of years: Linux version of Oracle 10g [oracle.com] .

Not free-as-in-speech, and if you want to deploy it commercially it's not even free-as-in-beer, but it does seem to meet your "personal database" criteria: it's the reason I've more Oracle experience[1] that SQL Server experience (though MSDE briefly threatned to change that - to some extent).

I'd need to check, but a few years back DB2 was also a free download, with the no-commercial-depolyment caveat. I'd be surpirsed if it still isn't; it's a neat trick to get developers hooked on cheap/free versions so that their organisations then migrate.

[1] Twice as much - a whole extra week ;)

Re:Similar move from Oracle/IBM will follow very s (3, Informative)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199044)

You can already download for free, Oracle for Linux,Windows and a few more platforms. All you need is an OTN membership. However its only for Non-production use i.e. you cant run your business off it.

As for Open-sourcing the DB engine, you can keep dreaming though..

Re:Similar move from Oracle/IBM will follow very s (2, Insightful)

Gopal.V (532678) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199082)

> With Linux, you may have to buy some software, but most of the stuff you need can be found around the net, just couple of clicks away from being ready for you to use.

I would say that's a very common mistake. I've spent a LOT more time downloading and building stuff and man it's hard.

1) you download the tar ball,
2) Oh it needs gtk2 gtkhtml3 and mysql4
3) download and compile
4) ./configure CFLAGS="-03 -Larry -Wall -fwith-everything-except-your-...." --with-fries-and-coke
5) install everything , argh !
6) broken totally !
Bleh, nothing is a couple of clicks away except total destruction of your box :(.

The fixed ABI has its own problems - see Opcode DB [metasploit.com] . (of course the problem's all due COM with the a.pVT->xhx() calls).

Don't delude yourself about anything in Linux being a click away. Shareware you pay with cash, Free Software with your time - I've had to hack proxy support into at least half-dozen things that has crossed my path.

Re:Similar move from Oracle/IBM will follow very s (1)

zzabur (611866) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199127)

Don't delude yourself about anything in Linux being a click away. Shareware you pay with cash, Free Software with your time - I've had to hack proxy support into at least half-dozen things that has crossed my path.

No, shareware takes your cash and your time. Free software takes only some time -- today it's usually very easy to get working. And even if you pay, it still might not work. With free (as in speech) software, you at least have the source.

What you say might have been true for RedHat 6.x and related applications. Today, the claim that MS software takes less time to get working and/or administer is completely untrue.

DB2 UDB Personal Developer Edition (2, Informative)

tjwhaynes (114792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199146)

I fact, I've been waiting for free-download Oracle/DB2 "personal database" or some limited opensource release of Oracle/DB2 for a while.

So, err, maybe you wanted this?

DB2 UDB Personal Developer Edition [ibm.com]

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Only internal business use (5, Informative)

natslovR (530503) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198885)

It can only be used internally, so you can't use it in situations where you may have been able to get away with the hardware restrictions on a small external site or (i guess) distributed to clients as part of your product.
1. USE OF PROGRAMS. You may install and use the Programs solely for your internal business purposes by your employees, agents and contractors. The Programs may not be transferred, distributed, sold, assigned, sublicensed or otherwise conveyed (whether by operation of law or otherwise) to another party without Sybase's prior written consent.

Front End...? (2, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198888)

Does it have a programmable front-end, to which I can add business logic easily? This could include formatting [and verification] of inputs on the fly. Access calls them "input-masks". What about its report creation structure, and SQL. On many occasions, I would like to disable some widgets, in case a particular one choice has been made earlier.

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:Front End...? (4, Informative)

m4k3r (777443) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199001)

It certainly does!

Plus, without ever using Sybase (I'm more of a PostgreSQL fan), I'm fairly sure that Sybase would provide a C/C++ api.

(For those that haven't caught on, Sybase is a competitor to such products as Oracle, DB2, PostgreSQL etc, and is not compareable to silly little toys such as MS Access)

Re:Front End...? (1)

robbieduncan (87240) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199020)

Sybase is not a replacement for Access (neither is MS SQL Server). It does not provide any sort of graphical front end. It is just a database server. You write your own custom front end in whatever you like. You can probably even configure Access to connect to it via ODBC.

Re:Front End...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199031)

Well you could set up triggers which could validate the end values of the data but I'm pretty sure as far as a front end goes you have to find one yourself.
You could probably find a Java front end that useses the JDBC interface (e.g. a driver to give you a set of standard API so it should work on any database).

Re:Front End...? (1)

abirdman (557790) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199075)

Does it have a programmable front-end

Short answer, no. Like Oracle, MSSQL, Postgres, and MySql, none of the "big-iron" databases have integrated programmable front-ends. That functionality is supplied by whatever programming language you use: Perl, Python, VB, .NET, PHP, ASP, whatever, as well as some built-in functionality (like stored procedures, functions, and views) in the database itself. With any of these you have amazing flexibility as to platform, presentation, and access possibilities, as well as grown up features like hot backups, rock-solid backend enforced data integrity, replication to multiple servers, etc. If you want an integrated front-end, use Foxpro, Filemaker, or Access (and put up with their limitations). If you're uncomfortable with a database that lacks that kind of front end, consider learning one of the excellent programming languages used to access the data on a "real" database, and leave the DB nuts and bolts to the DBA's. I did, and haven't looked back.

multi-write replication? (2, Insightful)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198898)

Anyone know if this database is any good at replication, with multiple-write replication slaves? or even a single-write machine, with automatic re-selection of the writing machine?

anything to improve the current mysql replication situation..

Re:multi-write replication? (2, Interesting)

PhatAir (468678) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198919)

Yes, but it's in a separate product called (no awards for originality) Sybase Replication Server. It was one of the first repservers on the market and is very full featured.

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:multi-write replication? (1)

mpeppler (128232) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199130)

Sybase has various replication tools. One is shipped with this EX version (Replicator 12.5) and is written in Java (I think).
Their Replication Server (not free) is probably the best replication system in the DB business, allowing you to write/create any form of multiple site replication (both master/slave and master/master).
Finally, SQL Remote is part of their Adaptive Server Anywhere package and is better suited to lower volumes and to syncronize systems that aren't always accessible (such as from hand-held scanning devices).

Michael

Clever (4, Insightful)

/ASCII (86998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198904)

The database caps of the free version are high enogh for the product to be usefull for web applications and smaller projects, a market that is completely dominated by free alternatives such as Postgres and MySQL. Almost everyone who shelves out $$$ for a database server run much larger systems.

I bet they are hoping that by giving away the product for free to people who would never buy it anyway, they get droves of people who are experienced at running their system who will eventually buy it for larger projects 'cause that's the system they know how to use.

Kind of like how SUN sells computers to universitys dirt cheap.

MS-SQL was licened FROM sybase (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198922)

MS-SQL was licensed FROM sybase. Then Gray came on board and fixed it in the 6-7 era.

BRAINWASHED (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10198941)

my god. i've never seen anything so pathetic and obvious case of brainwashing in all my life.

"...extremely strong argument against Microsoft solutions" a baseless and deliberate assumption like this in injected into what seems like 75% of slashdot stories. This is stupidity in the extreme. if MS makes the more appropriate solution, you damn better well pick them, for your own server-monkey sake

if your motivation is just 'no microsoft at any cost', you are a tool of all these jerks riding high on the general sense of ill-will they cultivate and the work of those countless volunteers that built the friggin apps they are pimping (esr, i'm looking at you)

It's as if slashdot's mission is more about indoctrinating the anti-MS mindset than championing free software.

here's a good point to remember: use the right tool for the job. it's as simple as that. sometimes it's MS. Sometimes it's your favorite fanboy project founded on idealism and granola. sometimes it's also Redhat or IBM (think big $$$).

having your ability to assess these tools tainted by such fervid invective, knee jerk hatred as slashdot gots to offer, well, you are going to reap what you sow.

5 GB is small (-1, Redundant)

CmdrPuto (246448) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198950)

5 GB is small but better than nothing.

I am sure this database is upgradeable when it's needed.

Good news (3, Informative)

the_dubstyler (810220) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198960)

This is, IMHO, a very good thing. Sybase is an excellent DB (I've worked with some top developers who swear by it) and a much better option than MsSQL for small projects where 1 proc/5Gb is more than enough (and there are lots of projects like that). Considering that no client I've ever worked with has been willing to go for PostgresSQL/MySQL (preferring MsSQL), this will be a welcome victory against Microsoft, as Sybase has a pretty good name in the db game.

Linux only? (4, Insightful)

News for nerds (448130) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198962)

postgresql officially supports Windows from version 8, then how can Sybase on Linux suddenly claim "a very attractive alternative to Microsoft SQL Server"?

Re:Linux only? (2, Interesting)

jamesh (87723) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199028)

all sql's are not created equal. most sql languages have been described as a superset of a subset of the original standard. I can think of one application which we are agents for which is basically limited to sql server. I believe they had a look at postgresql for a short time but that was cancelled as it didn't support a few features that they used. I think the most painful one was case insensitive identifiers.

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.

Great... (0, Offtopic)

demon_2k (586844) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198963)

More competition for MS. The more alternatives, the better. I only with that there was something to compete with directx

microsoft would likely prefer you forget... (5, Informative)

bani (467531) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198972)

...that microsoft sql server is sybase [wikipedia.org] (albeit 1993 codebase)

This is good stuff (4, Interesting)

FullMetalAlchemist (811118) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198980)

This is good. Though people will complain, they always do, about everything.

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 :)

This is not new news (1)

graham_m (151190) | more than 9 years ago | (#10198993)

I downloaded a free version of Sybase for Linux back in 2000. Wonderful product, arguably easier and better designed than a certain other big RDBMS player.

Finally a real database to use for a toy OS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199011)

never played with postgresql but finally a db i know i *can* use stored proc's for! thanks sybase...

Curious about what thing.. (4, Insightful)

John_Allen_Mohammed (811050) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199049)

5 gigs is real pittance for the amount of data being collected these days, almost making this useless. What happens when the 5 gigs fills up ?

Oh (2, Interesting)

xedx (776707) | more than 9 years ago | (#10199056)

cmon Firebird(Interbase) is much better than this strapped DB http://www.sphere-data.com/docs/ib_vs_ss.shtml [sphere-data.com]

Re:Oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199088)

But Firebird is run by a bunch of asshats that didn't want "their" name being used in a browser. Like a DBA would be confused and buy their a broweser instead of a database.

I discard them utterly.

IPv5? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10199063)

On completely unrelated note, what ever happened to IPv5? We're all running IPv4, migrating to IPv6, and where did the 5 go?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>