Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Drops Licensing Restrictions from Web Server 2008

Posted by Soulskill on from the retrograde-innovation dept.

Channel Guy writes "According to a report from CRN, Microsoft plans to allow users of the Web Server SKU in Windows Server 2008 to 'run any type of database software with no limit on the number of users, provided they deploy it as an Internet-facing front-end server.' The previous limit was 50 users. Microsoft's partners expect the changes to go a long way toward making Windows Web Server 2008 more competitive with the LAMP stack, against which Microsoft has been making headway in recent months."

7 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Still have to pay for the OS by filbranden · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With Windows Web Server 2008 you'll still have to pay for the OS. With LAMP it's free.

    Windows Server 2008 is the server version of Vista. Will it have the same licensing model? Will this unlimited Windows Web Server be available only in the Ultimate version?

    In any case, this shows that Microsoft is getting desperate, and even with this I don't think they'll get any market share from LAMP.

    1. Re:Still have to pay for the OS by a-zarkon! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if or when they decide they've recaptured sufficient market share they will increase their fees...either through licensing of connections or functionality. I must confess that I find this pretty amusing. I think (and hope) they're going to have a tougher time killing off this competitor...

    2. Re:Still have to pay for the OS by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're a hosting service, or if you're serving up databases for multiple web clients, then it's quite possible that you might have dozens of different users. I don't know about you, but when I've got multiple databases on a server for different people, I don't tend to want to give everyone access to the entire show.

      Still, LAMP is free, so unless they're going to start giving away Server 2008, they can keep it.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Still have to pay for the OS by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if you don't have any experience with *nix, that's true, but as a guy that has been using various flavors since about 1990, the above is just nasty flamebait. The really neat part is that I can go to my managers and say "Yeah, it will probably take a bit longer to get that Samba domain controller rolled out for accounting, but guess what, your licensing fees forever is $0.00."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Still have to pay for the OS by filbranden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Linux is only free if your time has no value." -Jamie Zawinski

      Agreed, but Windows costs more than the double of what Linux costs:

      • Windows requires as much or more administration than Linux.
      • Windows has as much or more updating and upgrading hurdles as Linux.
      • If you have a problem with Windows, it's not like Microsoft is going to hold your hand and fix it for you quickly. Most times I needed technical support for a commercial product, I realised I would fix the problems myself quicker and better, if I could do it (if I had the source).
      • If you have problems with bugs in Windows, you have to wait for Microsoft to fix it, if they decide to fix it.
      • With Windows you're more prone to more serious security problems. Of course there are vulnerabilities in Linux as well, but I've never seen something as wild as the chaos caused by ILOVEYOU and NIMDA in Linux.
      • With Windows you have to spend with server licenses, client licenses, extra CALs if your clients are not Windows. If that was not enough, you still have to pay for an antivirus. With LAMP you don't need any licenses. Not to mention that you have to manage all the licenses. And don't lose any media, it's not like you can easily download it from their site!

      So, while Linux is not gratis, it's still much cheaper than Windows. Especially for Web systems such as LAMP, most distributions allow you to install it as easily as one command (or even a graphical installer), and you can even download a virtual machine that you can use as a development or testing environment without even having to install anything.

      If there is one thing that still can be cheaper in Windows, is that you can hire a Windows administrator for cheap, while a Linux administrator would probably require a higher pay. But this is changing with the popularization of Linux, there are more Linux admins in the market today. Another point is that you get what you pay for, the cheap Windows administrator probably won't do that good a job, and if you want quality you'll probably have to pay as much as you would pay to a good Linux administrator anyway.

    5. Re:Still have to pay for the OS by jacquesm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if they're going to give it away they can keep it. There are far more benefits to open source than sticker price alone.

      --
      MP3 Search Engine
    6. Re:Still have to pay for the OS by rvw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is silly though. Web services only need one "user" -- the user that connect to the database on behalf of the server. That is not the way Microsoft defines a user. A Microsoft "user" is any person who uses the website. So if you have thousands of users, you have to pay for thousands of CALs, or take a server-license (one price no matter how many users).