Microsoft Revamps Licensing Plans

prostoalex writes "Microsoft is introducing significant changes into its licensing program, faced with competition from Linux, as Reuters article suggests. First, Microsoft starts giving away free server licenses to its Software Assurance Program customers, if the PC is not actually used in production and is not present on the network. Such licensing would be convenient for disaster recoveries, where it's important to replace a failed server as soon as possible without calling Microsoft support or licensing partner. Support lifecycle is also extended to 10 years for a variety of products, including Windows 2000, Windows XP and SQL Server 2000."

Comments

Probably...

[macshune]

I've seen many businesses that still run NT4 and I even know a few folks that still use 3.1, but the latter is the exception, rather than the rule. It's pretty expensive to upgrade software, not just in the cost of the product itself, but in lost productivity and people-hours needed to perform the upgrade. when you have a large organization these costs can be prohibitive and procrastination seems very attractive. of course, any other slashdotter probably could tell you the same thing...

Wow, a really long support life cycle...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

IIRC, it used to be five years for most of Microsoft's Windows products.

In contrast, Linux's supposed #1 commercial distribution, Redhat? All official support was pulled after 16 months. I hope people can lobby to keep enterprise business away from Redhat.

Re:Wow, a really long support life cycle...

[Albanach]

We moved from RedHat for that reason.

Nonetheless, their decision was a business one and a legitimate decision at that. Linux and Open Source in general have a development model of release early, release often. If a bug is spotted, it's generaly corrected by a new release, not a bug fix to an existing release.

If you don't like that model companies, RedHat included, are willing to backport patches to earlier releases. You can subscribe to such services for $$$.

Basically, Linux comes in two flavours, one for early adopters, happy to patch adn upgrade as necessary, the other is for those who want long term stability. The first one can be free as in beer, the second can too, but much more rarely. If you need the kind of support and stability offered by option two, you're probably willing to pay for it, and quite possibly willing to pay redhat for it.

Re:Architectural Obsolescence?

[Decaff]

The only think NT4 is missing is ...

LDAP authentication support,
Built-in terminal services,
Plug-and-play,
USB,
User switching,
Compatibility modes,
System restore,
An eye-ruining GUI,
A dog that helps you find files.

more old news

[lseltzer]

Once again /. breaks a month-old story.

Re:I don' see how...

[linuxelf]

I agree that the average user doesn't want to look at the source code. I'm a Linux user, and I never look at the source code to my OS. However, I get so sick of the support argument. Have you ever actually called Microsoft Support? They're horrible. I've never had any solution come from Microsoft support. The last time I called Microsoft Support for assistance with a Services for Macintosh problem, they recommended that I don't use Microsoft's Services for Macintosh, and instead use a Mac product called 'Dave.' For this advice, they charged us an astounding hourly rate.

Also, the average user does not keep things running smoothly. The average user is so completely ridden with adware/spyware that their computers are hardly usable at all.

misinformation about Red Hat

[danny]

Red Hat's commercial Enterprise Linux is supported for five years.

And even with the non-commercial offerings... Well, Fedora Legacy is still providing updates for Red Hat Linux 7.3, and I'm confident there'll be no problems finding updates for Fedora Core 1 for at least another three years.

I agree that Red Hat did a shocking job of explaning what was happening when they changed their product line and started Fedora, though.

Danny.