Slashdot Mirror
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."
"Microsoft Revamps Licensing Plans"
Microsoft had no choice really. It was either extend their tech support, or watch many people turn to Linux when they next upgrade.
This just delays that, probably until longhorn where the choice between upgrading or Linux is to be made, in about 2 years.
3dinfo@maficstudios.com
When the disaster strikes, and the software is enabled, will MSFT come knocking on the door with an invoice for the previously 'cold' software?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
Yeah, I probably will still be running Windows 2000, if I haven't switched to Linux or another platform by then.
I'd like to upgarde to XP, but I absolutely will not tolerate product activation in something as mission-critical as an operating system. It's not an option for me. I refuse to permit my OS vendor from deciding on a day-to-day basis whether I'm going to be allowed to boot up my machine.
That seems to be OK for most folks, so I'm just going to put my tinfoil hat back on and go back to Win2K now.
Does this mean that they don't think they can keep up the 'a new version every 3 years and you will migrate' strategy? If so, is that because they can't make enough new products (Longhorn >= 2007 ? ) or can't get people to migrate.
Well with the number of patents MS is submutting a day I think they are trying to force out linux as being compatible with alot of MS's new services.. I just hope that MS's doesn't attempt to force a patented standard on the windows user base and succeed.. Hopefuly the ball will swing towards the open source standard and MS is forced to drop its patented "Technology".
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
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
That's a step in the right direction. But, I am not a big fan of that type of licensing. I ran into several applications that used this same logic. The problem is that we architect our services for automatic failover. So, the backup server must be available on the network at all times, and when the criteria for failover are met, it instantly takes over. It may even by synchronizing data in the background all the time.
Only one server is every active at any given time, but both need to be running. Some licenses allow for this. But, it's obviously much harder to enforce licensing limitations in this model. It almost has to be an honor system, unless the application is fully HA aware and can ensure only one is active at any time.
I got a tech support ring that a printer was not responding on Thursday.
Ancient printer on top of a locked cabinet. Noone around could find a key and aside from the door in the front there was a power and cat5 cable coming out from a hole in the back.
After about 10 minutes w/ my Gerber ripping the cabinet open I discovered a 486DX running a PC-DOS print server.
Pushed the reboot button on the front of the case and to my shock it actually booted back up again (old PC HD's have a tedency not to spin back up). Tested it and it printed fine.
Pushed the cabinet back up to the wall and chuckled to myself. Made a note in our ticket system and called it a day.
Just a note: There's alot of shit out there running that sometimes the IT department doesn't even know about. I wouldn't doubt if there are a few other of these PCDOS print servers and prolly a few 3.1 machines around.
But you're forgetting that with open-source, the 'average user' can hire ANY programmer who is familiar with the software, hell, any programmer who ISN'T familiar... he can become familiar by looking at the source.
With Windows, you're locked down to MS' (pretty terrible) support.
In corporate land, they may well be.
We replaced a horrible mix of Win95 and Win98 with Win2K in 2001. There is still a bit of Win95 around, but it is dying slowly.
We are looking at Longhorn coming out in 2006 (maybe) or 2007 (probably) or 2008 (possibly). If Longhorn comes out in 2007/8 - we would not even consider upgrading until 2009. If there is no driver to change, then we would push further; Longhorn will mean new PCs, which jacks up the cost again. I could easily see a scenario where we are happily running Win2K in 2010. We might be getting a bit itchy by 2014...!
99% of our users need email, simple office and a browser. If Win2K does the job (and it pretty much does)...then what is the incentive to drop $20 million on new PCs and a new OS roll-out? And yes, some form of Linux desktop in about 2007 looks pretty attractive to me...
My boss is still running a multi million buck a year business off of mostly old 486's running DOS something, I never found out the version number, I don't work at the "downtown" office, only visited there twice His attitude is, if it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.. He paid obscene large amount of cash for it way back when, and it's still working! So he doesn't see any need to change. About a 30 guy shop, it's actually a cluster of smaller businesses run under an umbrella organization. He has two newer compaqs running some propietary stuff to access one of his suppliers on the net, besides that, all the payroll/accounting/inventory management, etc is all DOS. I saw his secretary typing away, then saw her shift to some console and saw back slashes and I asked her "is that DOS11!?!1"
She said "yep, what we always had"
What you're saying is that
1. Microsoft isn't going to make people play for licenses of Windows that they aren't using
2. Microsoft isn't going to force upgrades anymore, at least not exactly.
Gee, how altruistic of them.
When it comes to budget, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rules the day. Companies would prefer to keep using the same computer systems forever, if they did the job. And I cannot say that's really a wrong attitude.
Of course, at many companies, the attitude is "even if it is broke, don't fix it unless it's stopping production outright". I just spent two weeks in a rather insane upgrade-a-thon at a customer, because they got bought by a larger company, and their new corporate IT department nearly had a heart attack when they saw the state of their systems. Many computers were stilling running Windows 95. Their main server was running Novell NetWare 4.11. These products are ten years old, unsupported, obsolete, and flat out broken. Win95 can't even get a DHCP lease without three patches (Y2K bugs). Oh, and a fleet of ten megabit unmanaged repeaters. And dead anti-virus software. And missing the disks for the backup software. And...
When corporate deployed their anti-virus software to this site, it darn near exploded. Over 8000 infected files on one PC alone. Their WAN guys were screaming bloody murder about all the worm traffic coming from this site.
It was great fun. For sufficiently small definitions of "fun".
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The only thing Microsoft could do to improve their software is open their source code? Amazing.
.conf file(s) I need to edit to get my tv-tuner card to work in my linux box.
I'll bet the guys in Redmond are slapping their foreheads as they read this post thinking, "All this time we have been doing things like making the Windows more stable (my laptop running XP hasn't crashed ONCE since my last reinstall) and supporting all kinds of wierd software and hardware, and making it easy to use. What we should have done is be more like Linux. That's easy to use and supports almost every component ever made, right?"
I don't know what is more sad, that somebody bothered to post this drivel, that somebody modded it up, or that people actually believe it.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to go find out which
bit trollent
How many think this is the result of IBM pushing linux aggressively, or the quality of linux digging into Microsoft's market? Or is this just Microsoft pleasing customers and has nothing to do with linux?
"Microsoft Revamps Licensing Plans"
Please tell me, "to revamp" is a verb from "revenge," isn't it? Why do I always have bad feelings when I read "Microsoft," "licensing," "competition" and "Linux" in the same sentence? I must be paranoid or something.
(By the way, wouldn't it make more sense if the link "as Reuters article suggests" actually pointed to the Reuters article instead of the Yahoo link which suspiciously looks like pay-per-click partnership program URL?)
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Some of the TRS-80-era portable PCs were the most rugged computers ever made. I read a story a while back about them still being used in places where people driving things over the PC case was a plausible scenario.
Its the so called law of the jungle. With the legal systems not able to control financially powerful organisations such as M$, then the natural reaction to this problem is for open source to become one of the only competitors to M$.
Unlike the courts, in competition such as this, the vast amounts of highly payed lawers cannot be of much use.
Beta Sucks
With the number of recent stories about Microsoft changing their mind about something (the SP2 install story being the most recent), how long does everyone think it'll be before we see a retraction of this policy, with something along the lines of "Someone spoke out of turn again" being said?
As usual, they make a big deal of changes that are complete bullshit. Like there were people who were thinking, "Gee, I wish I could build a redundant server in case we ever need it, but that would mean buying an extra license or violating our existing license. I better just hope nothing happens to our primary server."
These are not the licensing changes you're looking for, move along.
Any chance that we'll get the legal option to connect a thin client to an XP box without booting off the user on the console?
The only thing all versions of windows are missing is multiuser support. I'm sure I don't run my CPU at 100% throttle, yet nobody else can use my machine without one of us having to go for a coffee break.
Multi-User or Multi-Settings?
Beta Sucks
1.) Just how much exactly is Microsoft afraid of Linux? How much marketshare does Microsoft percieve Linux to take?
2.) How will Microsoft know if its plugged into the network? As well as the fact that a server w/o updates or recent data (yeah, I'm sure you could use removeable storage for that, but there goes the TCO), will be pretty much worthless. If it takes 8 hours to get recent data on it, and install the past 6 months worth of updates, how useful is it really? In addition, I don't like the idea that a server may be "calling home" to confirm that it is not in use. Sounds like a setup to me.
3.) With the longer product life, is Microsoft realising that people actually don't want to upgrade their OS every 5 years, especially for mission critical devices?
Bored? Why not join a decent mess
2 logins.
Wow!
On the other hand, the multics operating system was doing better than that in 1965. Way to go Microsoft - only 40 years behind the cutting edge.
Chemical company, has a big, proprietary machine specially made to run some simples mixes-and-test in an automated manner.
:
Damn thing breaks, refuses to start the procedure...
reboot gives nada...oki, I have to move myself to that lab and see for myself.
80186...yuck...Dos...yuck...
No doc, cryptic error message from the (also) proprietary software...
Call the company that made this (still exists ! yeah !!!) and they tell me they don't have ANYONE in their organisation that has any sort of experience with that old beast... and that If I am ready to wait, they can have the documentation out of deep storage in just under a week...YUCK!
BUT !!! they also have a name and phone number in their file about a guy that seem to be a specialist on the hardware...
Maybe there IS an IT Gos somewhere, smiling at me...?!?
After a quick phone call, I have some shocking news
1/ The guy is dead (god bless...) at a nice 85.
2/ The guy was the former head of the Lab...yes, the Lab I was trying to service. He took retirement some 10 years ago, and was kindly making maintenance to his former company, being the one that ordered and used the machine in his time...
ordering a full replacement machine is in the 5 zeros order....
=> I now have a nice undergraduate CS Student that is building an interface with a more modern machine (PII something I found ready for the trash bin), using Linux and the docs that came from the builder...
It might even have a GUI 8)
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
If the servers have to be turned off until they are needed and the original servers are running Windows, how often do you think the backup servers be turned on?
I don't think Microsoft thought about that. And I'm certain they think their servers will stay online to compete with Linux. On top of that, I'm not certain I understand how an offline server is competing with Linux.
There's a simple question here:
Are they stupid or do they think we're stupid enough to believe this?
Get your hip-waders out folks, it's getting deep very fast.
Parent is right! The "reuters" link in the story points to Yahoo afilate program link instead of reuters website! Editors: Please correct the link in summary.
Activation has done little to reduce piracy, so the cost probably wouldn't come down even if MS was passing the savings on to consumers (and they're not).
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
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
That's funny. The last disaster recovery I was involved with kicked off with scrapping all of the hard drives. IIS, Exchange, and Windows 2000 Server were tossed and replaced with Apache and Sendmail on a couple of Mandrake boxes. Our network was lightning fast after that upgrade. It took a complete and utter failure of both the primary and secondary domain controllers for us to realise how stupid keeping the MS machine oiled is.
one of the reasons i've adopted gentoo on production servers
;-)
syncing with two months delay and only selected packages (against my own portage tree), i'm still running 'up to date' system, and i don't need to think about 'another big update'
as long as gentoo officially exists, at least
since i have started, there were already two releases of mandrake and two releases of fedora core, so it has been worth it
AFAIK, there are still bbs's in the St. Louis area running MTABBS on trs-80 III's. They were some of the best in the mid 80's.
Microft
https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
Sounds like MAC (Microsoft Ass Covering). The reason is two fold.
1. Since all those people who have software update contracts with MS have basically gotten squat from them in the way of software this may pacify those business who purchased the plans. Better yet it may cover the ass of the IT department who said purchasing those plans would pay for itself in the long run.
2. It provides a band-aid, even though it would not help that much, for the glut of worms and viri that have cost businesses money, data, lost employee hours and customers. More than likely if a system administrator was stupid enough to let his system get infected in the first place he would probably infect the backup server when he went to recover the files.
Even though both of these things would really help MS in the long run, at least in the PR department, they still have to add a bunch of stipulations to getting the software. I think Microsoft would be happier if they got the PR and the stipulations meant that only 1 or 2 people were eligible to get the free software. They also blew a really good chance of helping to dispel the truth that their OS is full of security holes by allowing those with pirated copies to download the "more secure" SP2, but they quickly jerked that back and gave about the lamest statement to come from a software company to the press about it. Who knows, it could be a smart move if SP2 is not as secure as MS has been claiming it is.....they can just blame the pirates or linux or both.
Microsoft is used to shooting itself in the foot but lately they seem to like emptying the whole clip into instead of just a single shot. It makes me wonder who is behind all this, Gates or Ballmer?
One of the first "real" adoptions of Linux (like 1993-1994) on a corporate scale was a company that makes elevator controllers. Their motivation was quite simple: they need to be able to serve the elevator controller, in situ, *in 50 years*. They can't trust any company to do it for them, so they stashed away all the source code, all the tools, *AND* several computers on which the tools can be built.
Frankly, any machine that uses a motherboard that supports the Intel 440BX chipset is ready to run Windows 2000 Professional.
Win2K Pro--once you install Service Pack 4 and all current security patches--is actually a very nice operating system for business applications and Internet access. I myself run Win2K Pro (SP4) on a home-built system that uses the Abit AB-BM6 motherboard with a Celeron "A" 500 MHz CPU with 384 MB of RAM and all programs run decently fast.
Another big advantage of Win2K Pro is the fact that software driver support for PC hardware is nothing short of superb. On a fast enough system with USB 2.0 and IEEE-1394 external connections (which are supported in Win2K since there is plentiful third-party driver support for these connections), Win2K is actually a pretty good platform for editing files downloaded from digital still cameras and MiniDV/MicroDV digital camcorders.
It's no wonder why Win2K Pro is still much-liked in the corporate world.
There are still people that use DOS-applications,
Use, hell. I write and maintain some very specialized DOS applications. I run dosemu on my Fedora Core 2 box to edit and compile them, actually.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
The Bank's response: It runs, it prints, and it does not crash. So why bother?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
First, an off-topic question to the moderators: How can self-professed ignorance ("I don't get it.") be insightful?
Next, a response to the parent.
When corporations talk about "official support," they're looking for a couple of things that F/OSS can't give them:
Number one is standard CYA; if you do your own software support, then it's clearly your fault when things aren't working. The fundamental rule of succeeding in Corporate America is: find someone else to blame. You sort of get this with F/OSS, if your job consists of sending in bug reports and then sitting back and waiting for the maintainers to issue a fix, but how is this any different from closed source?
Number two is something people often overlook. When problems occur, corporations need to know when to expect a solution, so they can plan accordingly. That means they need fairly firm deadlines, and someone to intimidate if those deadlines slip. Just try to do that on IRC and see how far it gets you. Since most companies don't have the resources to have a coder on staff, support contracts are the only alternative.
I dread upgrading anything microsoft - It always breaks current apps and then I have to upgrade those.
In all the linux upgrades I did I have had three apps that did not work - they were all custom apps and we had the source and all we had to do was recompile because of gcc had changed/upgraded.
software is always changing and for businesses that are smart they should always be upgrading something. Linux is always improving - for me at least upgrading linux has been a no brainer - it works great and is easier to administer.
One other word is I cannot believe the 2.6 kernel - I have been watching tv editing huge video files and my swap has not even been used. - unbelievable!!! Microsoft - be afraid - be very afraid.