When it issues a second Windows .Net Server 2003 release candidate, Microsoft also plans to announce a new, per-user licensing option. Plus, other tweaks are being offered. Additionally, major Longhorn revision shows AMD 64 support.
Microsoft to Loosen Licensing Clamps
2002-12-02 Windows 18 Comments
This is not really an official announcement, but anyway, nobody will have understood why Microsoft will not support the 64 bit architecture from AMD, a good chip maker.
I am sure I speak for all civilized readers of OsNews, but I do not want abusive readers like John Galt and their offensive remarks here or anywhere in the net, especially when they are targeted to someone like Eugenia who is doing a great service to the community.
You may disagree, but you have no right to offend people.
You go away, John Galt!
>You go away, John Galt!
He already has.
As for his remark towards me “why are you still here?”, he obviously doesn’t read through articles, as I have clearly said that I will be here full time till Dec 12th.
uh-huh…..so instead of your first born, they only want your second born….great….
Stop being unrealistic. Have you any idea how much commercial Unix licenses cost and even how much the professional versions of Linux cost? First make a comparison, and then come and talk over here.
Someone reads ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and is so insecure that they need to take the moniker of Ayn Rand’s brilliant protoganist. It’s a pity really, since he misses the point entirely.
Professional version of Linux…
You can pay for support if you want…
…but the licenses is Free.
Does anyone know what the cost is for Unix license, Linux, or Windows? Is it per seat or per server? How about using an example of company XYZ with 1000 users with 5 servers and 1000 workstations. What is the cost of adding more servers and workstations if the company expects to grow, say 5%, annually?
Just a curious question about licensing cost.
>You can pay for support if you want…
Sure, but corporations NEED support, this is why Ms sells it in the package.
As for the version you linked, it is not the Enterprise version of Red Hat Linux (equivelant to .NET Server), which is the one we are talking about here. Check out Enterprise’s prices and then compare to them to .NET Server. We are not talking about XP PRO here.
Stop being unrealistic. Have you any idea how much commercial Unix licenses cost and even how much the professional versions of Linux cost? First make a comparison, and then come and talk over here.</quote>
Who uses that stuff? FreeBSD and a personal copy of most linux versions paired with one decent Unix person to tweak it out gets you an OS as set or better than any of those silly professional versions of linux.
Also, it is not the cost of commercial Unix licenses that get you it is incredible cost of those commercial Unix servers that kill you.
I like Microsoft licensing. Makes more people consider all the alternatives not just linux but BSD and even OS X.
The funny thing is that NT 2000 or XP is pretty stable I just do not personally like them. I don’t like the GUI style and I do not like the way MS handles Administrative tasks, domain setup etc..etc..
It is not that I hate Microsoft the company. I just hate their products.
Too bad, I was rather starting to enjoy all the “more licenses to come” articles. We should expect more of these types of letters (including official ones) in the future. They do not want to lose anyone else to alternitive platforms. But trust this.. when the new release comes out they will politely ask us to bend over for some new technology.
On second thought, what do I know?
the exodus begins.
i read the complete article and i must say: why not?
if they start to offer CAL’s as a option and you can still go the per CPU way, then you can just pick up the licensing option you like more.
what i would like to know is:
how is the CAL counted (1 active directory account = 1 CAL)? and is it allowed to use 1 CAL for manny users?
if someone is using the .net server just for file and print services, then he really does not need to have personalized CAL’s (i know that there are 10’000 reasons to use personalized CAL’s for such things, but on the other hand, there are as well reasons to use just 1 CAL for all the users). the bad thing with microsoft is that if you start using their technology you end up paying for exchange, file and print services, database access, etc…
anyway… in the long term i don’t think that the .net server will be a big succes, except if you can use it as a application server. but for simple file and print services, the .net server is just to expensive. but microsoft is very intelligent! they will just stop supporting old versions of their software and you will be forced to buy the new one.
the other thing i don’t know is how the CAL will be counted in a distributed environment? does it mean, that if have active directory set up and i register a user into the AD, that i have to pay 1 CAL for that? eaven if i am using the AD as a authentification service and don’t use any other .net server as file and print services?
however… i am happy that i don’t have any windows server (except 1 winnt enterprise server for a old lotus domino r4.67a test environment). no way i am going to buy their expensive stuff. i am happy with ibm lotus domino, db2, websphere, samba, bind, etc…
To me, the whole CAL thing always seemed wrong. If the user was going to be doing the majority of his work on the server, running programs exclusively off the server, then I can see how charging for a CAL might be justified. But for something like a file/print/mail server, I don’t see how companies got the idea that it’s okay to charge twice for the Operating System (which, assumedly, is being run on the desktop machine, too).
Still, it’s a compelling enough argument for me. The servers in the office will be either Linux or FreeBSD. I can build the machine I need, and not have to bother purchasing for the extra five, six grand for the software.
“It is not that I hate Microsoft the company. I just hate their products.”
Funny, I’m pretty much the opposite. The old DOS-based versions of Windows (95/98/ME) were garbage, and Windows NT was dodgy, but Win2k/XP are basically good products saddled by a untrustworthy vendor that is ultimately a threat to its own customers.
Check out Enterprise’s prices and then compare to them to .NET Server.
redhat.com offers the Red Hat Advanced Server Premium Support Edition for $2499.00. That is for a one year subscription to Red Hat’s support service.
microsoft.com offers Windows 2000 Advanced Server (which also supports clustering, etc.) for $3999.00. That comes with 25 CALs, and includes MS’s standard support.
So, if you have 25 clients or concurrent connections, Windows will only cost you 60% more (plus you still have to get a desktop OS for each machine, though I imagine you could run a free OS on those boxes). However, for each additional client machine / connection you want to add, you need to own a CAL ($800 for 20 CALs), which means the price is even higher. And, if you want to run a web server, that will cost you another $2000 for an Unlimited Internet Connector License (only usuable by non-employees).
So, using the example above of 1000 workstations and 5 servers, with a per-seat licensing model, Windows 2000 would cost 5 * $3999.9 = $20000, and then for the remaining 875 CALs that is 44 packs of 20 CALs (880 CALs) * $800 = $35200, for a grand total of $55200, and nobody but your machines can connect (ie. you can’t run a web server, though you can get a license to allow that for $2000/server).
Now, microsoft does have volume licensing available (along with software assurance, where you get to pay them every year for the right to get an upgrade, should one come out), which lowers the cost of high-volume purchases like this. But, no matter what licensing method you use, you will still need to pay for each and every machine/connection/user on your network that wants to talk to your server, and that will always make Windows cost more.
Of course, these are prices for Windows 2000, not .NET, but I don’t see anything in that article which says that .NET will be any cheaper, just that you can use 1 CAL per user instead of per machine (obviously, where the number of desktops and users are evenly matched it makes no difference). Also, it mentions some changes to the Internet Connector License, but just that it will fill in some gaps that are missing from the current licensing scheme.
Yeah, OT, it is sad someone who don’t understand Ayn Rand’s works start flaming in these boards. And they don’t even take time to read the whole article. Sad.
>>You can pay for support if you want…
>Sure, but corporations NEED support, this is why Ms sells it
>in the package.
so does redhat/ibm/sun
strawman fud… you CAN get support if you NEED it
and you can get the FULL ENTERPRISE version w/o cost or support
>As for the version you linked, it is not the Enterprise >version of Red Hat Linux (equivelant to .NET Server), which >is the one we are talking about here. Check out Enterprise’s prices and then compare to them to .NET Server. >We are not talking about XP PRO here.
no, we aren’t
since you didn’t bother looking..
is 2.1AS… advanced server
itanium is there too
oh … and you will gripe cause its SRPM only
but the fact remains
yes, you can get redhat advanced server Free