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."

21 of 356 comments (clear)

  1. No Choice... by KrisHolland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "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.

  2. inquiring minds want to know... by rah1420 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  3. 10 years of support... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. It's an improvement, but... by tji · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:In 10 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. Re:I don' see how... by xiang+shui · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  7. Re:In 10 years? by fleabag · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

  8. So, um by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Yes, in ten years, if not longer by DragonHawk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  10. Wow, this is soo insightful. by OldSchoolNapster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only thing Microsoft could do to improve their software is open their source code? Amazing.

    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 .conf file(s) I need to edit to get my tv-tuner card to work in my linux box.

  11. Re:Yay for competition by AcidPhish · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  12. Uh oh, the Redmond Mind Trick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  13. makes you wonder... by chrisopherpace · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:makes you wonder... by BCW2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Everything from M$ since Win95, calls home if it's online in any way. Some firewalls can prevent this. Your box also gets snooped anytime you update. The Community College I just finised at was very careful about licenses due to fear. All classroom boxes were online. When it was time to update, the sysadmins did one box and then did the rest from ISO's, so M$ never snooped all the boxes. They also used deepfreeze, every time a box was rebooted, it was done from an approved image and anything downloaded or saved to the hard drive was lost. All boxes were shut down every night. They just didn't want to blow their discounts from M$.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    2. Re:makes you wonder... by grotgrot · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Just how much exactly is Microsoft afraid of Linux? How much marketshare does Microsoft percieve Linux to take?

      You should remember just how Microsoft took over.

      • They very rarely drop backwards compatibility - the old VisiCalc binary runs even today
      • They realised the value is making their suite of operating systems and applications appear like they had almost everything in common, even if under the hood they didn't. For example look at how little shared code there was in the office suite or how the desktop and server operating systems were fundamentally different
      • They entered all markets. This created a circle where if you had Windows on the desktop, you were more inclined to run it on the server, the notebook and the palmtop.
      • They created tight linkages between Microsoft software on different machines for example in authentication schemes, web browsers and servers, file system protocols, networking (uPnP) etc
      • Where their platform was not number one, they gave the development tools away for free
      • They have always done a really good job on developer information (MSDN)
      • They offer very little choice. For example look at how many different authentication schemes you can actually run on a Microsoft network, there is exactly one web server, one web browser, one gui environment, one distributed component system, two office suites, one developer environment, one device driver model (now), one way of doing i18n ...

      All of those practices appeal to managers ("it is easier to manage Windows servers and palmtops if you already manage Windows desktops"), developers ("write once, run anywhere") and users ("if you know how to use win95, you can use WinXP"). (As geeks we all know there is devil in the details but those statements are largely true in the big picture)

      Linux on the desktop is becoming the threat because that means it becomes credible to have Linux everywhere (servers, palmtops) (ie the same reasons why Windows spread like a virus :-)

      The Linux companies are slowly doing some of the same things, but at a far slower rate, and IMHO far more stupidly (ahem RedHat, take a bow). But Microsoft never makes the mistake of underestimating their competitors, and these actions are consistent with them learning what lead to their own success and ensuring the same doors won't be wide open for Linux.

  14. Another nice support story... by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  15. snicker by TastyWords · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  16. Are IT people co-dependent? by greycortex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  17. Re:In 10 years? by hpa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  18. Why not? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  19. My Bank runs DOS! by freedom_india · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Right on the mark. Hell, my bank (atleast my local branch) has IBM P-IV machines each with 512 MB RAM and they run DOS 6.22 Software which handles Olivetti (remember, they went bankrupt) passbook printers.

    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