Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software

IBM Sets DB2 Database Free (Beer) 253

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the not-as-in-speech dept.
Anonymous Coward writes to tell us that in the hopes of winning more developer interest, IBM has released a free version of their DB2 database. From the article: "DB Express-C is the same database as IBM's commercial offerings but the company places limits on what kind of hardware it can run on. It can be deployed on systems with two processor cores or up to two dual-core chips on Advanced Micro Devices- or Intel-based servers. The memory limit is 4GB but there are no limits on the size of database or number of users. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IBM Sets DB2 Database Free (Beer) More

IBM Sets DB2 Database Free (Beer)

Comments Filter:

  • Question for/from the Inept (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:05PM (#14599409) Journal
    *puts on his ragged and unused database admin hat*

    *paints two large concentric circles on his chest, one inside the other*

    *throws off his gloves ... and steps into the circle of death that is known as a Slashdot forum*

    Alright, I run a MYSQL database at home for my little crappy web server which no one visits because pictures of me visiting Mexico isn't exactly worth typing a number into your browser. All those details aside, why should I switch to either Microsoft's SQL Server 2005, Oracle 10g or DB2?

    I'm a huge MYSQL fan ... well, because I've enjoyed their stuff freely for quite some time. Suddenly, everyone (and their dog) is releasing their once-thousand-dollar database in a free and slightly inhibited form.

    Why the hell should I even bother thinking about switching to these new databases? And, further more, it seems that most of these newly free databases are not intended for corporate use ... like DB2's memory limit and the castrations of the other databases ... so where do they belong? In the hands of small businesses? A company's "developer camp?"

    And could you be so kind as to make the prior assumption that I know I'm an idiot so you don't need to tell me that. Just give me some nice hard facts that are easy to measurably prove one database has an advantage over another.

    By the way, thanks ScuttleMonkey for clarifying that it's "free as in beer." Unfortunately it's only noon and now you've awakened my desire to get slammed over lunch.

    • self taught learning? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by way2trivial ( 601132 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:08PM (#14599439) Homepage Journal
      want a job? job requires knowledge of a specific app? Ka-Ching....
      • want a job? job requires knowledge of a specific app?

        Not just that. The GP says

        And, further more, it seems that most of these newly free databases are not intended for corporate use ... like DB2's memory limit and the castrations of the other databases ...

        Actually, two modern dual core CPU's and 4GB of RAM is several times more powerful than the DB2 server that powered our company through the Dot Com boom. This is a limit in name only. Of course, if you're running your business off it, you will still

    • Re:Question for/from the Inept (Score:5, Funny)

      by jzeejunk ( 878194 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:09PM (#14599446) Journal
      Alright, I run a MYSQL database at home for my little crappy web server which no one visits because pictures of me visiting Mexico isn't exactly worth typing a number into your browser.

      You are underestimating the slashdot crowd. Try posting a link to your website here.
    • "so where do they belong? In the hands of small businesses? A company's "developer camp?"

      .edu
      Let them use it, and they will come.

    • features (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MORTAR_COMBAT! ( 589963 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:11PM (#14599457)
      does mysql do this:

      http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/db2/library/ techarticle/dm-0511singh/ [ibm.com]

      • Re:features (Score:5, Funny)

        by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:32PM (#14599637) Journal
        Your article uses the word, "leverage." Furthermore, it uses it as a verb. Stop weirding language.

      • Re:features (Score:3, Informative)

        by XMilkProject ( 935232 )
        No, but the free MS SQL has been doing it (with more features) for years.

        *Braces for attack*
        • MSSQL can't take an XML document and then parse it and store it as a parsed structure. It can return queries as XML but even that hasn't been around very long.
      • Native XML capabilities don't belong in a relational database. If you want an XML database, use one.

      • Re:features (Score:5, Informative)

        by zardo ( 829127 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:00PM (#14600779)

        Here are the major differences between commercial databases I've used, all offer a free "express" edition:

        Sybase
        Cheaper version of Oracle, much of the same underlying code, optimised for speed although maybe not quite as fast as Oracle. Missing some features like GIS datatypes. Annoying limitations like a 30 character name limit and no full outer joins (only the union trick). Recently integrated with the java virtual machine to do java stored procedures, good for java development. Popular with financial transaction companies, probably due to stable codebase (not a lot changes).
        MS SQL
        Microsoft buys Sybase codebase, which is decent, and build into it a lot of developer studio tools and integration, no Java.
        Oracle
        Much the same as Sybase, grew out of the same early-era databases, with more features/options (like GIS datatypes) and arguably, it's faster too. Also the most expensive. Popular with Java applications, java integration just like Sybase. Same annoying limitations like 30 character limit on names and no full outer joins.
        DB2
        Move forward with new features unlike Oracle and Sybase, noticably different feel than the classic databases. Java integration also. None of the annoying limitations mentioned earlier.
        MySQL
        Lots of advanced features added in newer versions, such as GIS datatypes (by programmers for programmers, as they say). Fast, low memory footprint, free. Widespread support. Biggest setbacks are the lousy query optimizer and other fundamental aspects of the core which may come back to bite you, although I hear it has a well organized design that aids in development of new features.
        PGSQL
        Great database, been around long time, used to be slow but now is faster with more popularity due to mysql success. Free and all that. Biggest limitation in my limited experience is the lack of any replication features built in.

        I know I may have missed some major issues that I'm not aware of, so feel free to add to this.

    • Re:Question for/from the Inept (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:11PM (#14599460) Homepage
      I'm glad you're happy with MySQL for your personal web site. But what does that have to do with DB2? IBM is trying to attract developers, not small web site webmasters.
    • I'm not sure I'd bother switching. MySQL 5 supports all sorts of cool features. Combine that with the fact that you already know the product and the decision as to whether or not to switch should be a no-brainer. Unless, of course, you need some feature that isn't in MySQL- but I haven't run into that particular problem yet.

    • Re:Question for/from the Inept (Score:5, Informative)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <namtabmiaka>> on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:14PM (#14599485) Homepage Journal
      Alright, I run a MYSQL database at home for my little crappy web server which no one visits because pictures of me visiting Mexico isn't exactly worth typing a number into your browser. All those details aside, why should I switch to either Microsoft's SQL Server 2005, Oracle 10g or DB2?

      You shouldn't. In fact, it's mildly surprising you're even bothering with a database.

      You should download the big databases if you fit in any of the following categories:

      1) You need to develop against or evalute the database.
      2) You need to learn the database to increase your marketable skills.
      3) You happen to run a high-traffic site and you need features not found in PostgreSQL.
      4) You run a site that you expect to grow in traffic and want the option of upgrading to a more powerful version of the software at a later date.

      I'm sure that others can find one or two more cases under which these DBs would be useful.

      • Re:Question for/from the Inept (Score:5, Informative)

        by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:27PM (#14599607) Homepage Journal
        Two words: Software validation. Database licenses are very, very expensive. You have an app that you've already developed against, say, Oracle or DB2, and you want to to run some test scenarios from a functionality standpoint. You could spend thousands on the software, or you could just keep your testing scenarios within the limits of the free beer version and not have to worry about software licenses. Later, you will probably need to prove out your software from a scalability perspetive and you'll need the real software then, but you don't need to be paying for the license during your year-long release cycle.
      • 5) You want to KNOW that your Database will be supported by a global company in the future. Remember, OS2 was only cancelled this year, and then it was licensed to another company for further support. OSS is great, and there is great value in being able to hire programmers to fix and upgrade your applications, but there is also a great deal of value in having a company with IBMs track record totally committed to your data store.

    • developers,developers,developers (Score:5, Informative)

      by free space ( 13714 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:14PM (#14599488)
      The thing is, most developers use the dev tool/database they 'play with'.
      So all companies are releasing a "playful developer edition" of their tools, so that developers learn their stuff, play with it,and when they do a serious project, they will ask their boss to buy tool X because it's what they know.

      To directly answer your question: you don't have a reason to replace MySql on your site where you post mexico photos. But IBM wants other people to use DB/2 on their personal sites/apps so that they get the habit of using it elsewhere.

    • Scalable Software (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RevMike ( 632002 ) <revMike@gmail. c o m> on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:16PM (#14599505) Journal
      Why the hell should I even bother thinking about switching to these new databases? And, further more, it seems that most of these newly free databases are not intended for corporate use ... like DB2's memory limit and the castrations of the other databases ... so where do they belong? In the hands of small businesses? A company's "developer camp?"

      First of all, the commercial database offerings are far more feature rich than MySQL, though MySQL is getting better all the time. MySQL is fabulous for the hobbyist and small business crowd, but won't be found as a core technology of a major investment bank or backing an SAP installation at a large manufacturer anytime soon.

      So the benefit of these free commercial products is that developers can build systems based on these technologies, then scale them easily to both small businesses and large enterprises. No one will start running their self-hosted blog on DB2, but it is easy to build a software product which may target businesses of several different sizes, and using a consistent database engine for small business and large enterprises is useful.

      • Do not generalize (Score:2, Informative)

        by alexborges ( 313924 )
        I mostly agree with the parent's comment except for:


        First of all, the commercial database offerings are far more feature rich than MySQL, though MySQL is getting better all the time. MySQL is fabulous for the hobbyist and small business crowd, but won't be found as a core technology of a major investment bank or backing an SAP installation at a large manufacturer anytime soon.

        And i dont agree because MySQL IS found in major operations of major businesses all over the world.

        Okay, so perhaps not on evey singl
        • I keep hearing rumors/statements that MySQL's support for transactions and commits is lacking or "is a hack." It's not really my area, and I've played around with it only on a very superficial level on a home server, but in its default configuration it did not seem to do commits, but rather changed elements of the database in real time as it was being given the data, with the possibility of a half-created record being left in the system if (say) the client got disconnected halfway through. This would make i
          • MySQL has a fully transactional engine that does the log thing, the rollback thing and the rollforward thing. This engine is ACID compliant from any way you wanna look at it.

            The trick is the table format you choose. Refer to the mysql docs for that.
    • Unfortunately it's only noon and now you've awakened my desire to get slammed over lunch.

      Funny, Paris Hilton [t-online.de] told me the exact same thing last week after just 2 bites in to my lunch at Spago.

    • MOD PARENT REDUNDANT (Score:5, Funny)

      by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:27PM (#14599603) Journal
      concentric circles on his chest, one inside the other

    • Re:Question for/from the Inept (Score:5, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:38PM (#14599686) Homepage Journal

      DB2 is arguably the most scalable RDBMS out there. It was some time ago but when I worked for Tivoli we kicked out some benchmarks and the story was basically that SQL Server (basically Sybase 10 back then) was fastest but least scalable, oracle was slower but much more scalable, and DB2 was slowest but by far most scalable, basically never slowing down any measurable amount no matter how much data you stuffed into it.

      Whether this is the current state of affairs, I can't say.

      Personally I'm a postgres fan but I'm using mysql for fiddling around with drupal because the mysql support is exceptionally poor. Most all the modules have schema information only for mysql, and sure you can translate it over, but some things won't work quite reliably in all cases. So the answer, as usual, is that you should run the platform supported by your applications.

      • Re:Question for/from the Inept (Score:5, Insightful)

        by GooberToo ( 74388 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:16PM (#14599978)
        I'm glad you brought up performance versus scalability. PostgreSQL is often considered slow by MySQL fans who fail to understand the concept of scalability. Simply stated, MySQL is typically faster than PostgreSQL with low scalability requirements yet PostgreSQL tends to scale much, much better than does MySQL for both complex queries and highly concurrent, mixed operation loads. Obviously, this is a rule of thumb and not a hard/fast rule. I'm sure there are corner cases (which is often put forward in MySQL benchmarks, which are not reflective of real world applications) in each camp which ignore the rule.

        For people that do not understand scalability versus performance, let's put it like this:
        MySQL is fast for one user and PostgreSQL, while fast for one user, tends to be slightly slower than MySQL. On the other hand, add a hundred concurrent, mixed operation (aka, not read only) users and MySQL tends to go belly up. At the same time, given the same example, PostgreSQL is happily chugging along; albiet at increased latencies. Of course, this statement is broad and makes many assumptions, but it will hopefully help others understand the concept.

        So, given your rankings above, PostgreSQL, tends to find a middle ground between Oracle's performance/scalability ranking. In other words, PostgreSQL tends to scale less than Oracle yet tends to perform better. MySQL, on the other hand, performs fairly fast for read-only databases but scales very poorly.
        • Simply stated, MySQL is typically faster than PostgreSQL with low scalability requirements yet PostgreSQL tends to scale much, much better than does MySQL for both complex queries and highly concurrent, mixed operation loads.

          Well, those are directions most people do not want to scale into; generally, when people design high performance web sites, they tend to go for simple queries and straightforward loads.

          Postgres is a great database because of its features, but for most applications, MySQL is both suffici
          • when people design high performance web sites, they tend to go for simple queries and straightforward loads.

            Who said anything about web sites? Besides, complex is always relative. Frankly, fairly simplistic queries for PostgreSQL can often be considered complex for MySQL, given its optimizer. What does, "straightforward loads", imply? Read only? MySQL's bane is concurrent reader/writers to the same tables.

            Since you brought up web sites, believe it or not, most web sites require something other than sin
        • > So, given your rankings above, PostgreSQL, tends to find a middle ground between Oracle's
          performance/scalability ranking.
          > In other words, PostgreSQL tends to scale less than Oracle yet tends to perform better.

          While I agree with your definitions of scaleability & performance, what would lead you to the above conclusion?

          Both postgresql and mysql lack query parallelism, fine memory tuning, any kind of partitioning, etc. Without these features postgresql is *at best* only faster than oracle on ind

    • Re:Question for/from the Inept (Score:4, Interesting)

      by iabervon ( 1971 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:59PM (#14599846) Homepage Journal
      The big databases seem to do better with tons of reads and writes. They also tend to have extensions that let you do things to make certain types of complicated queries a lot faster (such as "for each month, give me the number of rows with a date column in that month and the total of the value column, also the total number of rows, and the total of the value column. But only include rows where the owner column is this value.")

      The reason that they're releasing free versions is for developers whose software is used by big companies. If you were working on software for some big company and the database companies didn't offer free versions, you couldn't provide a solution using an expensive database, because you wouldn't be able to test it without paying a lot of money that you won't want to. Then the big company doesn't have a reason to buy the expensive database, because their applications aren't tested with it and probably won't run any faster. When I was working for a company that made a web application intended to be deployed internally by big companies, we used half a dozen free copies of Oracle, and probably wouldn't have used Oracle if these hadn't been available. Of course, these free copies of Oracle were running on workstations and only dealing with example data, not real customer data, so, from Oracle's point of view, the weren't actually doing any database work.

    • Why the hell not? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 )
      If you are a GPL or death person then there is not reason. I would rather us Postgres than MySQL but that is just me.
      If MySQL works for you and you don't need anything else and don't want to learn anything keep MySQL.
      Now for the reason you would.
      Want to learn how to use DB2?
      Want a really heavy duty ACID compliant Database server?
      The limits on DB2 are... TINY I mean even in a good sized company a 4 gig ram limit and two core limit is unlikely to cause you issues.

      This is to target MS-SQL not MySQL. If you dev
    • Alright, I run a MYSQL database at home for my little crappy web server which no one visits because pictures of me visiting Mexico isn't exactly worth typing a number into your browser. All those details aside, why should I switch to either Microsoft's SQL Server 2005, Oracle 10g or DB2?

      No reason I guess, unless your site isn't built on open source software, on which case you should be paying your commercial MySql licence.

      From http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/ [mysql.com]:

      In their simplest form, the followi
      • I believe the GPL only applies to software that you are distributing right?

        The rule is, if you distribute the binaries, you must also distribute the source code. But if you only run your code on your web server you don't have to do that.

        Have I misunderstood something?
    • Alright, I run a MYSQL database at home for my little crappy web server which no one visits because pictures of me visiting Mexico isn't exactly worth typing a number into your browser. All those details aside, why should I switch to either Microsoft's SQL Server 2005, Oracle 10g or DB2?

      The answer probably is that you shouldn't. MySQL or PostgreSQL are just fine for you. They're probably fine for any shop which just needs a DB for moderate use with no expectation that your DB requirements will grow upwar

    • If your site is just intended for recreation, then I think the answer is that you should not care if IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft all start offering free databases. You have a free database that suits your needs and you (presumably) already have a good understanding of how to develop with it and administer it.

      I work on a startup company [pocopay.com] on the side. Our application also uses MySQL (4.1.) Right now our database runs on a modest machine (P4 3.4 with 2 GB RAM.) We have had a few instabilities, and they seem t

  • I'm confused (Score:4, Interesting)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <namtabmiaka>> on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:07PM (#14599424) Homepage Journal
    How does this differ from the "Free" version they used to give away? I think I still have the install files sitting around somewhere for the 7.1 UDB install that I got off IBM's website. Did they stop offering a free version for awhile, then restart, or is this licensed a bit differently?
    • That would have been a trial version (90 days) most likely...
      • Considering that I ran it for about 3 years without it "expiring", I don't think so. According to IBM's site (the details of which have probably been wiped out by this new version), they were offering DB2 to developers for free. Oracle did the same thing. Only Microsoft had one of those stupid 90 day trial things.

        All I can think of was that the free developer versions went away with version 8.0, and haven't been replaced until now.
      • I've a copy, myself. Still have the snail mail CD & letter with trial code. My guess is that there's a bug in the timelock. I don't recall seeing the trial version available for a while, so my guess is that it got pulled, but I couldn't swear to that.

        Somewhere, I've got the trial version of Informix, as well, which IBM now owns. I believe Informix for Linux has been totally pulled - I'm not even sure if they still sell Informix at all, given their efforts to push DB/2. I don't know if anyone high enough

        • My guess is that there's a bug in the timelock. I don't recall seeing the trial version available for a while, so my guess is that it got pulled, but I couldn't swear to that.

          Nope, I'm talking about the Personal Development Edition [ibm.com]. (I looked it up. ;-)) The PDE is absolutely free for development use, and contains all the major functionality. IIRC, it has similar hardware limitations, but that's not something you really notice during development.

          • Ah! (Score:3, Funny)

            by jd ( 1658 )
            Ok, I had the trial Universal edition. If someone patched KDevelop to support DB/2, would that make it an IDE for KDE for PDE?
            • If someone patched KDevelop to support DB/2, would that make it an IDE for KDE for PDE?

              Ouch. That makes my head hurt.

    • Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)

      by Fire Dragon ( 146616 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:38PM (#14599685)
      How does this differ from the "Free" version they used to give away?

      The "Free" version that they used to give away was for development use. You couldn't use that version on your production system. At least thats how I remember it. I was playing around with it and decided not to install it because of that limitation.

      With this new version, it can be used on small production enviroments also. This makes it a lot appealing because of the starting costs of development and moving to production.

  • Free (Beer) (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:12PM (#14599473)
    Forget the software. Where do I get the free beer?

  • Downside (Score:2, Funny)

    by Nerdfest ( 867930 )
    The downside of all this is that if you take them up on it you'll be running DB2 ...

  • Toes, now feet in the water (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fak3r ( 917687 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:17PM (#14599509) Homepage
    IBM has certainly come a long way in the past few years in regards to recognizing the value of open source software. Now that they have a 'real' free offering(they used to have a bastardized one, and some will argue that this is only free as in beer, that this isn't free either, but...) this should change the dynamic of their marketshare. I know most goverment projects now pretty much want DB2 (at least the ones I've been involved in) but this will open the door for all sorts of options, ppl running CMSs, ppl using Databases for virtual mail users...wow, this is actually a pretty big deal, I think.

    Now, IBM, when will you offer either a 'naked' Thinkpad, or one that comes preinstalled with Linux (or FreeBSD) for us who want a real workstation?

    • Re:Toes, now feet in the water (Score:4, Informative)

      by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:30PM (#14599625) Homepage
      Ummm...I guess you don't keep up on tech news much.

      IBM no longer produces the Thinkpad, Lenovo does.

      • Eeek! Yeah, I knew, that, damn. I suppose that doesn't bode well for a LinuxPad from IBM as I'm sure they will "Recommend" XP. Oh well, I think the MacBook Pro, or just the 'non-pro' MacBook, would be nice with OS X and Linux installed. Now don't go and tell me that Lenovo produces the MacBooks... ;)
      • And yet, for some reason, the brightly coloured letters "I", "B" and "M" still appear on the bottom right corner of each Thinkpad that Lenovo makes.
      • It changes less than you'd think, though. The ThinkPads were made in China before IBM sold that division to Lenovo, and they're still being made in the same factories, using the same tooling, probably by the same people, now that they're Lenovo. From a consumer standpoint, nothing changed.

        I always thought it was odd that IBM never offered a Thinkpad without Windows, but I guess they have the same problem that every other manufacturer did -- start offering an alternative to Windows, and watch your 'most favo
        • They did offer a Linux thinkpad for a while. The TP A20 was offered... ISTR it came with Caldera. I don't think it sold well... it had lower specs than the A20p, which is why I got the p and installed Linux myself.
    • when will you offer either a 'naked' Thinkpad, or one that comes preinstalled with Linux (or FreeBSD) for us who want a real workstation

      Well, you can order IBM's servers [ibm.com] with either SuSE Linux Enterprise Server or RHEL. Their workstations [ibm.com] can be ordered with RHEL.

      For ThinkPad you'd need to visit Lenovo, and sadly it seems you're right: So far Microcrud only. They've even sold their soul Dell-like to the extent of "recommending" it on the home page. Send them a complaint! :)

  • OK - I'll bite - the 2 proc limit is significant (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:17PM (#14599510)
    OK - I'll bite - the 2 proc limit is significant. Most of the other "here's a free, hobbled copy of the huge thing we hope you will buy someday" seem to have a 2 proc limit. On the other hand, the truly free databases have so many advantages (for me, it's small footprint) over these that they are not worth looking at - I'd never want the FULL version of these databases, even if those, too, were free.

  • A little too late? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beacher ( 82033 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:17PM (#14599515) Homepage
    Just some thoughts and possible misconceptions - I haven't used DB2 at all, but I am a heavy Oracle and occasional mysql DBA/user. I just went to IBM's DB2 page and was not very shocked to see their migration page [ibm.com]

    "Migrate Now! for DB2 Universal Database (UDB) facilitates the migration from Oracle, Sybase, Microsoft SQL server, and additional database platforms to DB2 UDB at a special price. Migrate Now! is an end-to-end offering that includes migration tool kits, no-charge online education, sales teams and resources to assist you in planning and implementing your migration based on IBM's proven methodology."

    I think it falls directly in step with IBM's shift in strategy - lower the software cost and generate service based revenues. I don't think I'll be moving my stuff over anytime soon. Oracle on the data warehouse (the app was built before mysql could do cross table updates), mysql on the select only local repository.
    IBM may be too late for the vast majority of developers. The ones that offered their products to develop and learn on are the ones that will find some sort of loyalty.

    • I think it falls directly in step with IBM's shift in strategy - lower the software cost and generate service based revenues.

      I'm sure you're right. All hardware / service companies want to get a bigger share of the available IT budget, money not spent on software is available for the New Toy.

      IBM may be too late for the vast majority of developers. The ones that offered their products to develop and learn on are the ones that will find some sort of loyalty.

      If DB2 is the superior product [regdeveloper.co.uk], I'm sure the vast

    • You're mad.
      DB2 was the first relational database (although it didn't have a name back then).
      It was also the genesis of SQL.

      So I fail to see how they can be "to late" in any way shape or form.

      The DB2 database has been free (beer) for years for developers only.

      This marks a step in that developers are now allowed to redistribute the database.

      Do you actually know anything about enterprise scale relational databases, or are you just making this stuff up?
    • Since UDB is a piece of crap! This is a ruse, big time. And no... I don't work for Oracle - I just use both.

  • 'DB Express-C' available on multiple platforms (Score:5, Informative)

    by sczimme ( 603413 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:21PM (#14599554)

    A quick search of IBM's site reveals the links to download DB Express-C [ibm.com]. (Registration is required.)

    Since no one /. ever, ever, ever runs Windows, here is the link to the X86 Linux, 2.6 kernel [ibm.com] version. :-)

    • Multiple platforms? I count 2 without looking at hardware. Linux and Windows... Thats not exactly ground breaking. IBM has to support windows and likes linux. Maybe they should consider other platforms like say Solaris, MacOS X, FreeBSD, something HP makes, etc. With open solaris and the rumors about licensing floating around IBM may wish they had solaris support. Personally, I have a FreeBSD and Windows setup at the moment so it does me little good. Even if i get it to run under linux emulation, it

  • Question from the Impatient.... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    OK, DB/2 is fine and all, but how about a free (no 90-day limit) edition of Informix Dynamic Server [ibm.com]?

    Something I once heard from a contractor: IBM bought Informix in hopes of merging the Informix technology into DB/2... but found that Informix was so far ahead of them that there was no way they could do it without a full rewrite.
    • Alright, I have mod points to burn, so I'll bite...

      It's because IBM specializes in killing applications. See Lotus Notes, Ami Pro, OS/2, etc.
      Cripes, not that long ago, Oracle was dying to gain Informix market share because Informix was the DB. Sadly, they could open it tomorrow and I doubt anyone would blink.
      Good job, IBM. Why don't you do everyone a favor and buy Windows?
    • Something I once heard from a contractor: IBM bought Informix in hopes of merging the Informix technology into DB/2... but found that Informix was so far ahead of them that there was no way they could do it without a full rewrite.

      That seems more than a bit unlikely. Informix Dynamic Server just went in a different direction from DB/2, and that did indeed make it difficult to merge the two technologies. That said, prior to the buyout by IBM, the general feeling I got from people who knew better was that IBM

  • Communism! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Uukrul ( 835197 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:36PM (#14599668)
    Ballmer: And it had, you know, the characteristics of communism that people love so very, very much about it. That is, it's free.

    I'm sure Sam Palmisano has one of this posters [maebmij.org] in his office.
  • Just to create a blank database, Oracle defaults to 1 GB+. With the inefficiencies of the Oracle db, that does not exactly give me much room to play with. At least IBM is not going to have a limit.

    Also, I definitely recommend people look at things that have been taken out of these "free" databases. For example online backup is one common thing that gets removed.
    • One thing I wish I understood more is why the same desktop machine can run Oracle nicely under Windows, but you can't even install it under Linux.

      The machine I have in mind has 512MB of memory, some Pentium 4 processor and the usual 40-80 Gb of disk.

      At work, we use a plain old Windows desktop machine for the development Oracle server and don't have any problems.
      I tried to setup Oracle under Linux and it would require more memory and lots of unusual System V shared memory conifuration and Kernel settings etc
    • What the H*LL are you talking about? If you use the shiny happy tools to build a database, it will fit itself into whatever resources you have. If that means a puny database and a puny shared memory area then it will create you a suitable database. If you can drive without the training wheels, you could easily create yourself a database and instance that will fit on any current x86 laptop with no problems.

      I built databases on my laptop quite comfortably when

  • IBM Undercutting Itself? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zerbs ( 898056 )
    The specs for the free version seem high compared to the Express versions offered by MicroSoft and Oracle. I've seen a number of companies run their production databases on simmilar or even lowwer specs than that. (2 dual-core processor, 4GB RAM) I know IBM is moving to the service model, and that they tend to charge an arm and a leg, but I wonder how long these companies will be able to give things away for free. Will there eventually be escalation on what is free from Oracle and MicroSoft too?

    • Re:IBM Undercutting Itself? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kadin2048 ( 468275 ) <slashdot...kadin@@@xoxy...net> on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:57PM (#14600327) Homepage Journal
      My theory on why the specs are so high is because IBM can afford to do that, without cutting into much of their marketshare. At least on the hardware end -- IBM does offer some lower-end servers, but their bread and butter are the high-end ones. So where somebody like Microsoft has to limit the specs on the free version pretty severely, because otherwise they won't have a retail product to sell, IBM knows that a lot of people want to run their database on big iron. And big iron is a lot of money, not just in the hardware, but also in the service contracts and stuff that go along with it.

      If your database is mostly used on commodity, low-end hardware, you can't give away a version that runs on a quad-core, 4GB machine: that's eating into your home market. IBM can, because a lot of their revenue (I'm guessing) comes from machines much further up the specification ladder than that. In fact, they would love you to run DB/2 on a high end machine, because the sooner you do, the sooner you'll make use of it, and probably the sooner you'll find its limits. (Following the general rule that software expands to fill whatever resources you allocate to it.) And when you hit the limits of the commodity/low-end hardware, IBM would be more than happy to help you migrate your DB/2 install into something a little sweeter. For a price, naturally.

      Also, since they're last to the free-version game, they want to one-up everyone else. Simple competition.

      Anyway, I think the "spec creep" is a good thing for consumers, both IBM's and otherwise, because it might cause a 'free version war,' that can only be a good thing in the end.

  • Amazing newgroup support (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've been using DB2 for several years and I have to say that one of their strengths has to be the active and helpful user community that posts to comp.databases.ibm-db2.

    Compare the quality of information provided ther to any other database group or forum and I think you'll be impressed.

  • So what? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Monday January 30, 2006 @12:57PM (#14599832)
    I don't want a free database. There are more full-range free databases out there than free full-range editors.

    I want a free database + free zero hassle one stop installation + free zero database driver suckage + free native object-relational OSS PL support (and I mean Python and Ruby and PHP and Perl, all at the same time) + free full range plattform independent grafical admining + SQL errors that don't say "syntax error between line 3 and 10000" + a free full-range professional level grafical ER tool with reverse engineering of any DB I have to migrate to the DB they offer + free optional zero fuss, 3 config lines maximum load balancing.

    Call me when you offer that and I'll be using DB2, Oracle or whatever within an instant.

    Until then I'll stick to my current MySQL InnoDB stunts and my plans to migrate to Postgres or - as the case might be - Firebird. They are truly free and they got my attention. And if MySQL Workbench will be as cool as it looks I might even just not switch at all. Despite the fact that current MySQL still has way to go before becoming a full range database. MaxDB might change that - but we'll see.

    Sorry folks but getting attention requires a tad more than just giving your DB away for free these days. And it's all your fault. Hadn't you asked such bizar prices in the first place things probably would look different today.
    • I think the parent post says it all. Tell me something I haven't heard before, don't scare me with limitations that will probably bite me in the ass later or stick me with a surprise licensing bill, make it worth my while, make it easy to convert over. Otherwise, I'll stick to what I know, whatever that happens to be, because I can be productive there.

      Case in point: Thunderbird. Latest version still won't import all my Eudora mailboxes, or retain the notations associated with them (like, note that there

  • Scalability and windows commentary (Score:3, Informative)

    by finnif ( 945981 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:00PM (#14599860)
    DB2's XML functionality looks awesome, I'm definitely going to try this out.

    I am interested in all of these free editions for my web projects because it seems like it offers simpler scalability than MySQL down the road. Most high-end web developers--which I certainly am not--often end up having to find ways to get off of MySql as the site grows. Am I the only one who likes the idea of these scalable databases that I can buy later on?

    On the other hand, if you're on Windows, it seems like MSSQL 2005 is your clear choice. It surprises me that any of these companies are bothering to compete against Microsoft there. It's beautifully integrated into the Visual Studio IDE, as well as offers .NET-compiled stored procedures and other Windows-centric friendliness. Oracle and IBM have to come up with great linux tools to compete against what Microsoft has created in MSSQL 2005 (Oracle's Raptor is a start)
  • and tell Scott McNealy what to do with his assets. 'cos we could really do with java 1.5 being free.

  • Wow. No user limits or db size limits? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by WoTG ( 610710 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @01:12PM (#14599947) Homepage Journal
    You can serve quite a few users on a 4 core server! To me, this looks like a direct attack on MS SQL Server. A lot of software for small and medium sized businesses run on SQL Server. I doubt that IBM has much sales volume at the low end anyway, so what have they got to lose?
    • A 4-core server? Are you certain that the "2 processor" limit excludes multi-core CPUs? I wouldn't think so.
    • IBM does not do much with SMEs. But some SMEs will become large enterprises, and when they do they will want big tin and support and they will want to keep on using what they've got.

      The logic is exemplary. Microsoft has a lot of SME installations of MSSQL, and they hope that some will become big installations and by then they will have figured out how to do big iron. So IBM says to the SME "come to us instead and no matter how fast you grow your investment in software will never be obsolete. Hey, worried ab

  • For example: I'd heard good things about ASP.NET 2.0. I've been a Java guy for a couple years, but decided to try it out on a new project. I got the VWD package for free, and got going. After a couple weeks I realized that this was the direction I wanted to take with future development and got my boss to order up some Visual Studio Pro licenses for myself and coworkers.

    I started in Java because it was free, and would still be there had it not been for VWD. I think this is an excellent strategy by IBM.

  • Oh my god.. you killed IBM!!

    The download just aint happening right now.

    This relase good news.. with any luck I can write a db2 plugin for the next release of my software (if only SQL was a real standard and you could support a database with just ODBC... sigh...)

  • I see the Linux PowerPC 64 bit version, but how come there's no OS X version? Come on IBM, get with the times!
    • I doubt that will happen for a while. At least not until they fix all the performance issues with the Mach kernel. I just wouldn't use OS X for any type of heavy DB (of any app other of the same nature) use until then.

      A cheap file server with X-Serve. Sure!

  • DB2 is SOLID (Score:2, Informative)

    by wardk ( 3037 )
    May not be as light as MySQL, nor the darling of the open source community.

    But don't kid yourself into thinking DB2 is nothing less that what it is. a ROCK SOLID, HIGHLY SCALABLE, MATURE database.

    how useful all the additional features might be to the average PHP developer is certainly questionalble, but for the serious developer looking to do serious work, this is an excellent addition to the available toolkit.

      this is good news indeed, thank you IBM.

  • Most people don't need this. (Score:3, Informative)

    by ChrisA90278 ( 905188 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:11PM (#14600893)
    Most people who just need to get to work in the morning don't need to buy an 18 wheel semitruck and trailer. Heck, most don't even need an SUV. So if freightliner (who makes the big trucks) started giving them away most people wouldn't even want one Same here. DB2 is not something your avaerage home computer user would want. It is something of an 18-wheeler of a DBMS. Something only someone with a really big job would need. It's not surprizing that for most uses mysql works. There are far more users with small and simple neds then large 1000+ emplyee enterprizes. What you gain by using the likes of DB2, Oracle and maybe even POstgresql is "scalablility". The ability to handle larger demands by adding hardware. Notice that IBM be limiting use of the free version to machines with "only four CPU cores and 4GB RAM figures that the free version wil not compete witht ehothr version. So the "real users" of DB2 are using much more powerful servrers.

  • One word...OS/2 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dtjohnson ( 102237 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @03:16PM (#14600951)
    IBM stopped selling their OS/2 operating system last year but has refused to release it as open source or even to allow 'free' licenses for additional users. If IBM cannot find the generosity to release a 'free' version of a defunct operating system which there are cash-paying former customers who could actually benefit, there's reason to be suspicious of a 'free' version of DB2. The DB2 free version is probably some sort of scheme for getting lock-in to the platform and is not just an example of generosity by IBM.

  • The best reason to get it (I already did) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mycroft_514 ( 701676 ) on Monday January 30, 2006 @07:27PM (#14603185) Journal
    I am a DBA in a DB2 shop. We are still running 7.x and they are giving away 8.2 This will give me several months to try out new features of 8.2 before the upgrade to our mainframe.

    I can throw this on my laptop, and try out some ODBC stuff as well which is going to come down the pike from the development side of the house.

Slashdot Top Deals

Trap full -- please empty.

Close