Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Adopts Virtual Licenses

* * Beatles-Beatles is one of many to let us know that Microsoft has changed how they handle licensing for Windows Server and related products with regards to virtual machine environments. The new regiment will allow per-processor licensing to be handled based on the number of virtual processors rather than the number of physical processors in the computer.

4 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by justsomebody · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Either is that greed talking or they feel that people cheat with terminal servers to avoid buying OS licenses.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  2. I don't get it. by Poromenos1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this supposed to be cheaper? Unless people were running one virtual machine per dual-processor box, they will now be paying more. Isn't the purpose of virtualization to run multiple servers on one box, so one user can't access the other? Am I very confused?

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
  3. It's actually an old story by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A beggar found shelter in a tavern and sat by a fireplace where a hunk of meat was roasting on a spit. Before eating his meager dinner, consisting of a piece of dry bread, he held it out toward the meat to catch some of the flavour. The tavern keeper saw him and demanded payment, causing the poor fellow considerable distress, since he had no money. A wise man who was eating at a nearby table saw the commotion and asked the keeper what the problem was. "This thief is stealing the flavour of my meat!" the keeper said. "If he wants it, he better pay for it or git out." "That's all right," said the wise man. He pulled out a coin, threw it down on the fireplace, picked it back up and replaced it in his pocket. "For the flavour of your meat, I have now paid you with the chime of my coin."

  4. Lawn Mower Analogy by serutan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I only mow my lawn about every two weeks. My neighbor across the street mows his every week. Shouldn't he have to pay twice as much for a mower as I do?

    If software companies are allowed to control "their property" in this way, I don't see why sellers of physical products won't eventually do the same thing. Instead of buying a product and owning it, you'll merely be buying a license to use it for a certain amount of time. Then the license will expire and you'll either have to renew it or throw the product away. Tell me how this is different from what software companies are already doing?