| |
Claims that Sybase is better than Oracle?
Mich Talebzedah has just published a "tip"
Sybase vs. Oracle that suggests that Sybase is "better" than
Oracle on Linux platforms.
His reasons include that Oracle is very popular on Wall Street
(true), but has some more questionable findings like Oracle is a
"heavier, resource hungry beast", that Oracle has some sort of
barriers to entry, and some questionable comments about how
third-party products (TOAD) are required to use Oracle. Huh?
It remains unknown about this authors credibility, his academic and
professional qualifications, nor the "clients" that he speaks about
with great authority. Who is this guy, and why is he qualified
to write this tip? No resume, no bio, no information
whatsoever on this author and no information on why he is a credible
source?
SearchOracle has published a follow-up, noting that this article
has their "reader
riled up".
His reason on Sybase vs. Oracle include:
- The latest Sybase
flagship product, ASE 15, has filled
much of the perceived functionality gap
between ASE and other databases.
- Linux is an ideal and
cost-effective platform for development
teams and many companies. With the
availability of heterogeneous dump and
load of Sybase databases across
different operating systems, Sybase --
by virtue of its modularity and ease of
use -- is an ideal DBMS for Linux. This
needs to be contrasted with Oracle which
is, pound for pound, a far heavier beast
and resource-hungry.
- Sybase has a
well-established and skilled workforce,
offering infrastructure and development
teams who are fully familiar with
database architectures and Sybase
products.
- Applications
developed using Sybase have been running
for a while and providing adequate
service. There is absolutely no
guarantee that migrating these
applications to another DBMS will result
in the same level of service. I know of
no case where a migration from Sybase to
Oracle or otherwise has resulted in a
noticeable performance gain.
- The exit barriers
from Sybase and the entry barriers to
others are high. For a medium-to-large
application, it will take an average of
10 years for investment for ROI. A
simple cost/benefit analysis will verify
this statement.
- Check our Sybase ASE
15's total cost of ownership (TCO)
compared to Oracle. Based on my clients'
experience, one requires 2.5 Oracle DBAs
to provide the same level of service as
a single Sybase DBA.
- Sybase is fairly
modular and has a simple syntax.
Contrast this with Oracle where, in most
cases, you require a third-party product
to allow the DBA to reduce his/her
workload. Perhaps that may be a reason
why Toad, a non-Oracle product, is the
most popular GUI interface for Oracle!
- Sybase is a very
secure database. In fact, it is a
favorite with the U.S. Department of
Defense and Central Intelligence Agency.
Sybase is quickly bringing the security
features -- such as extensive Kerberos
support, programmable authentication and
data encryption -- to the market.
- SAP's release of its
lightway product for Sybase on Linux and
IBM's steps towards selling their line
of P5 Linux servers with ASE, while they
have DB2 and Informix themselves, are
pretty strong statements about the
future of Sybase.
- The future of Sybase
is secure, largely because it is well
entrenched in its core marketplace, the
financial services market. More than
half of Wall Street runs on Sybase. The
majority of complex trading systems and
banks use sophisticated replication
technology to provide
publisher-subscriber or peer-to-peer
replication. At this juncture, none of
the competitors can provide the same
degree of functionality that Sybase
Replication Server provides."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
and include the URL for the page.
