Slashdot Mirror
Sell Your Computers, Keep Paying MS For Licenses
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Licensing 6.0 requires a company to pay up on software maintenance when the computers that are covered under the license are sold off. Here's the kicker though: MS is no longer obligated to provide maintenance even though the contract is paid up! Read the Infoworld article."
I've often wondered - I've got a Sony Vaio, which came for a licence for Windows ME (which I don't use anyway). But when the laptop eventually dies, does the licence die with it?
Or am I allowed to move it to another computer?
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Maybe Apple was right with their (globally lambasted) "Lemmings" super bowl ad in 1985. Business just blindly walked off the cliff and right into Gates/Ballmers' bank accounts.
Of course I suspect if history had been different and we'd all ended up buying Apple's the result would not be that different. We'd have a Steve Jobs/Borg head icon instead perhaps. =)
At least we didn't all buy Amigas... then we'd all have to off ourselves for being such bleating wankers.
heh.
I'm honestly no longer surprised when a new story comes out along the lines of "give MS money, get nothing in return".
First it was per cpu licensing, then refund day, the MS tax on every name brand computer, licensing 6.0, expiring licenses, the "media center pc" (which is nothing more than a PC with a tv tuner), pay for support you don't (and can't) get.
What totally boggles my mind is that in the face of so many alternatives in both the desktop and server markets (linux, sun, mac os x) people continue to pull down their pants and bend over for Bill.
Not only do they not complain, but they do it willingly. People jump at the chance to hand over their hard earned cash to a bunch of crooks.
Maybe MS knows their days are numbered and it's only a matter of time before people wake up out of the mass stupor blanketing this planet, and that's why they're milking those poor fools for all they can.
You can't assign causality like that. Because it is opensource, people aquired the code, because one affects the other. Linus being famous due to Linux's opensourceness works too, because if it wasn't opensource, it would never have progressed to be such a big project. People wouldn't have helped.
Saying opensource is unreliable doesn't work. Code is unreliabale because people write bad code. Linux has a lot of developers and code managers. You can say, it's unreliable due to managers not addressing issues or crappy coders. You can have a closed source project with crappy code. Look at something like.. MS-DOS 4.x.
Trollin' the trolls..
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
All we need to do is get Congress to declare the current method of software "licensing" to be illegal; then force the idea that "once you buy software you BUY it--you can use it perpetually--but only one computer at a time, and if you sell it ALL your rights in the matter go to whomever you sold the software.
.sig says...
End of problem. Unfortuantely, it's harder to accomplish than anyone can imagine. Which is why you all need to elect me as Emperor for life. And, just like my
We purchase all of the new PCs we order with a Microsoft EA SA agreement. It's a nightmare trying to keep track of which boxes at which location have what version OS on them, what kind of upgrades they're covered up through, and so on. There's a dedicated guy just for our department that does nothing but dealing with licensing.
For anybody who's never taken the time to read through some of these contracts, print one out sometime or read through the EULA next time you upgrade Windows and be prepared to be suprised. Honestly, MS plays by their own rules.
The crappy thing is there is no real alternative. There's over 50,000 computers in this organization. Switching these boxen over to linux isn't an option (sorry guys, I love linux as much as the next guy, but the average 50 year-old in HR ISN'T going to be able to use it). And as expensive as dealing with MS is, it's still cheaper than buying 50,000 Macs and running OSX on them. Besides, most propritery medical apps only run on Windows from what I've seen.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
You honestly think one can't do buisiness using a Macintosh? Mac OS X is every bit as usuable as Windows, some may argue more so. There is certainly Mac software to fill about any need you can think of, and free high quality development tools just in case you find the odd thing that someone isn't currently supporting on the Mac.
Don't believe me? Go to VersionTracker and take a look at all the software you could ever want for that platform.
True Apple does have licensing as well, but it's not near as arduous as Microsoft's, that and Apple supports open source far more than Microsoft ever has or ever will.
When you factor in software and hardware costs, using the Mac isn't so much more expensive given that even though the hardware costs more, you get far better terms on licensing, that and your support costs are a lot less given that Mac's don't break down near as often as PC's. It may even be less, I remember a study which showed total cost of ownership of a network of Mac's was less than comparable PC's using Windows, but I can't remember where it was.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Someone spent a lot of time researching something pretty basic - if you sell a computer that has an "open license" (the license is not tied to the computer), Microsoft will allow the ownership of the operating system to transfer, but not the right to "free" upgrades. Umm, duh? Who, in their right mind, if they aren't giving way their software, would?
DAMMIT! STOP MAKING ME DEFEND MICROSOFT!!! ARGH!
So, it sounds like Micro$oft has got you by the ball's eh. It's called a monopoly. And it's not going to get better any time soon. Until people bite the bullet and move to GNU-OpenSource. I know it's alot of work, but there is a payoff.
OK,
How does April 23rd sound ?
Seriously. It's fine to say 'we should', we see
that alot on slashdot (phone your political rep. etc.). Let's do something. Pick your favourite
vendor that doesn't support linux yet, call them
on April 23rd.
I think we (slashdot readers) have more influence
than we often think we do.
I've been moving my work onto Linux, gradually, for several years now. I'm not an anti-Microsoft zealot by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, ten years ago, I was very pleased with many products coming out of Redmond. But as time has passed, Microsoft's products have bloated while their business practices leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Their licensing policies are the last straw; their greedy stupidities drive me nuts. Example: I bought a machine recently that came with a new copy Windows XP. I installed Linux on that machine, wanting to put the XP on one of my other boxes. But this copy of XP won't upgrade an existing installation of Windows 2000! Microsoft's reponse: I can only install the XP on a the machine it is "assigned" to!
Can someone please explain to me how Microsoft loses anything by my installing a "new" XP over an existing installation? Why do they care what machine I install the product on, so long as I've paid for it? Their arrogance is amazing; it is the result of corporate feudalism. I, for one, do not wish to be their peasant or peon.
As it is, I do 90% of my work on Linux now; I have only one Windows machine in my office, and it is used to simplify my interface with the MS world. But my next book is being written on Linux using AbiWord, LyX, and TeX, and I no longer take jobs that require MS products. A minor financial hit, to be sure, but a choice I can survive.
Microsoft lost me as a customer because of their attitude, not their product.
All about me
...why the US Army rejected Windows XP. Under NO--repeat, NO--circumstances are they willing to enter a situation where a vendor can shut them down. If push comes to shove because of file-format issues, Microsoft can look forward to selling *ONE* XP computer to the Army until they can convert anything involved into open formats. Period. End of story. (yes, I am somewhat in the know on this)
So you had a boxed copy of XP, and it's license, which came in the box, stated that XP could be used on any compatible hardware and transfered to other hardware at any time, as long as there is only 1 copy installed at any one time.
And you think that their changing the EULA with a service pack update can force your original license to suddenly be bound to a single piece of fictitious hardware that the software wasn't purchased with in the first place?
<quote character="Martin" show="The Simpsons">
Ha Ha.
</quote>
No Comment.
What's really funny is that more and more bosses are pushing open source these days. They've heard a speech, or read an article, claiming Linux is a huge cost-saver. You might have to spend a little more on adapting the software and training the staff, but that's nothing compared to the license costs. Besides, the transition from DOS to Windows, and later from Windows 3.x to Windows 9x, was just as large.
Any company switches software systems regularly. Next time, it'd be foolish not to consider open source alternatives.
Sticking with the old system will always be the cheapest in a shorter time-frame. If the boss knows that Linux will save the company lots of money on a three-year basis, and you still claim that Microsoft is the better alternative, then you will get fired.
Are You so sure they won't "win"? They're working on that damn Palladium cruft that will make all Open Source software either expensive or just plain gone from their platform, and don't think they won't get away with it. In the name of "security" most managers will gladly purchase any palladium machine.
I imagine Management going someething like this:
"-No viruses can run on this machine, ever again You say? Wonderful, viruses costs us $X/year, we'll have 3000 of those computers"
When big buissness has bought enough computers (and they will) most consumers (that don't have a clue anyway) will purchase their own Palladium machine, and pretty soon You won't be able to log into Hotmail, Your bank or wherever without your Palladium enabled machine.
I can't believe that US:DOJ/DOC agreed to this.
I'm already thinking about another career, perhaps management? I mean, how hard can it be to sit around getting paid a whole lot for making uneducated guesses about shit I don't know anything about and then forcing smart people to do dumb things? On second thought, perhaps I'll just become a male stripper instead, atleast that job has some integrity.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Really at fault are all those administrators that slept when the business classes went on in their education, if they didn't than they would know that spreading of all recources is one of the most important jobs of a company to spread their risks... Guess what, they all bought all their stuff from one brand, really smart... I hope lessons are learned a bit in this time and age, probably not, opertunists are blind most of the time... GPL gives most rights and security against afterwards claiming licence fees for end users. They enable a person to build a small business without being scared that he/she is bothered with the BSA animals. For that the developers had to but in a little bit, as i am both end user and developer dealing with GPL i am happy with the jurisdictional rest for most parties...
Well, you've made some pretty good points to support the idea that "Windows is quick and easy," while Linux is only for, written and supported by propeller-headed nerds with poor social skills.
In my experience, if you buy software that any fool can set up by clicking through some wizards, you'll inevitably end up with a bunch of fools running all your expensive computers... Which in the long run ends up being more expensive and aggravating than any propeller-headed nerd no matter how poor his social skills.
I know it seems painful now, but we're very quickly approaching a time when there will be two kinds of organizations: the kind that are getting stuff done with OSS, and the kind that are bent over squealing "Thank you sir, may I have another!" every time Microsoft's lawyers think up a new outrage to inflict on them.
So. It's not as pointy-clicky simple as you might like, and I can respect that. Windows is easier, you got me there.
Try to understand that I'm telling you this because it's what helped me, and not just to be a jackass, or to feel superior or anything:
RTFM
Nobody will drop their IT infrastructure right away. But once in a while, every company switches software systems. 10 years ago, you had DOS, OS/2, Windows 3.x, Novell, etc. 5 years ago, you had Windows NT, Windows 9x, etc. Now you've got Windows 2000/XP. Even within the Microsoft Windows 9x/NT product line, there are huge differences both from an end user point of view and from an infrastructure point of view.
No matter what you choose next time you upgrade, there will be transitioning costs. Even if you have to spend $20.000 more on software adapting and staff training when choosing Linux, you might save $50.000 on licenses. Do the math!
Your boss knows this, that's the really nice part. If the company's IT department can't save money by switching to open source, then they're all incompetent and should be fired ;-)
That's the funny thing about living on cash reserves... they can keep a company afloat while not having enough to give the developers raises. :-(
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
I like this idea - Slashdotters actually doing something other than crashing good sites. To really get this going however, someone with a little more Linux exposure than my-newbie-self ought to post a list of those companies that deserve a call. I believe somebody mentioned Adobe. Any other suggestions? Also emails work well, too - I can fire off a linuxspam to 40 companies faster than I can make a phone call. A little spontaneous organization (what, you don't read Prigogine?) and quite a few companies will get the clear message that a lot of people want Linux support on their products. I suddenly had the ultradork image in my head of the Linux community forming Voltron.
Telling a business "Can't you just switch" or "If you don't like it, do use it" is completely naive.
Really, it's just a summary of the situation. Naive was the business assuming that MS wouldn't use their monopoly position to squeeze more and more money out of them in spite of their long history of doing just that.
Even more naive is assuming that this is as bad as it will get. MS has made it clear that their license will get tougher than ever. The Bush administration has made it clear that it has no intention of fixing the MS problem.
The businesses made a deal with the devil and now there's hell to pay, no surprise here.
I understand that they can't just drop their whole infrastructure today and switch, but they can and should plan a transition NOW. All that money invested in licenses is depreciating fast (as soon as the next release from MS comes out in fact).
I'm sure it won't be simple (especially since MS has gone to great lengths to cripple interoperability) but I'll bet it won't be as painful as MS's next great new license policy.
You missed the distinction.
You can sell the computer; you just have to take the OS off it first. This leaves you a license that you can't use (because you now have more licenses than computers), and gives the buyer an expense to take on as well (the purchase of a new license).
If you keep the license, you have to pay for it annually; no termination clause. If you want to transfer the license, you have to pay it out in full, despite the fact that you are getting reduced value from the license.
That's the problem. But you can certainly go on using the license after you sell the computer; you just have to buy a new computer first.
"Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
There are too many x86 servers running non-MS OSes for Palladium to ever be mandated. Think how badly the web would run if everyone had to serve everything from IIS. Are there any SSH servers for Windows? How would you securely and remotely admin them?
And the thing about viruses is silly. Most "email viruses" aren't, they're outlook exploits or similar. Palladium computers will still suffer from this, moreso I'd imagine. Your email client is still going to have permission to write to your email (and delete messages) and send email, so email "viruses" can still be written to trick it into doing the wrong thing.
And, security that's too strict will be turned off. If users can't see the dancing_baby.exe they'll turn off signature checking, and if you don't let them, they'll stick with an older version of the OS. It's like making user password too hard to remember, they'll be on sticky-notes on the monitors.