Slashdot Mirror
MS Drops Licensing Restrictions from Web Server 2008
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."
Still, organizations that shy away from Windows Server because of the sheer number of licenses they would have to buy on limited funding (think: schools) will now be more open to it.
Netcraft reports that Google has 7.39% of all active web servers in their survey. Does that really mean that 7.39% of all web servers on the web are run by Google? Thats as interesting to me as the Apache vs. MS numbers.
I wonder what percent of the netcraft's MS number is MS machines.
I haven't seen any technical/logistic reason for them to be suddenly gaining ground (maybe this move would have some impact), so I was wondering if it is really happening and if so why.
.net application stack that corporations are adopting in droves. Or that Windows Server 2003 sets up balanced clustering with failover with very little brain activity needed on part of the administrator? (Oh wait, this is Slashdot... I forgot making things user-friendly is evil.)
I guess it couldn't possibly be because IIS6 is freakin' fast and memory-efficient? It also couldn't have anything to do with the great
Seriously. IIS is gaining ground because it's a pretty damned good product. That's all there is to it, no trickery involved.
Comment of the year
That's not exactly a fair comparison. While Windows Server 2008 is the same codebase as Windows Vista, it's not "just" the server version of Vista. By that same rationale, Windows Server 2003 was "just" the server version of Windows XP. However Windows Server 2003 had different SKUs than XP with different licensing models, and you can expect that Windows Server 2008 will be the same. Windows Server 2008 SKUs are much more inline with what is available for 2003 (though the total number is higher due to the duplication of editions for "without Hyper-V" versions). For the Server product, differentiation is more about licensing than features (the only feature difference between Standard, Enterprise, and Data Center is the lack of clustering in Standard).
The base cost of Windows Web Server is in the area of $400. This is as good as zero for the people that host 90% or more of the active hosts out there. Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400. However, the bulk of small-time outfits with an on-line presence (most of the the 90%) use a hosting service. They buy some frontpage-template-cookie-cutter "e-commerce kit" and run with it. They do not control or administer the server and most probably don't even care that they might be hosting their site on a Microsoft system, or Linux or BSD for that matter.
There was notable uptake in MSFT market share with the original release of Web Edition--just after the last time MSFT flirted with 1/3 market share they started losing it rapidly again, and its release temporarily kept them in the 30% range before it dropped back down to the low 20s for a long time. Win2k3 Web Server was found to be well suited to "parking pages" and "basic hosting services" for big-time web hosting companies--for those sites that are static and have little to no e-commerce and content-management requirements.
MSFT ran into a wall however because Web Edition has a lot of sometimes-severe limitations. Notably there are restrictions on number of database users and other back-end and connectivity issues that required CALs or other VERY EXPENSIVE ($5000 and up) licensing. For example, you are limited to workgroup security only, with only 10 SMB connections (something like XP Home Edition's capabilities in terms of Windows networking) so if Windows Networking is used to maintain the files on a host of a large number of little sites you can hit a snag there. Web Edition also is not permitted to work with SharePoint services, or use Rights Management services either. So, it looks attractive to start with, but when you want to do anything more useful than host a bunch of "electronic brochures" or domain parking then MSFT wants to rape your wallet.
As for your query, despite the common codebase with Vista, the Server product line is not likely to bear any resemblance to the Vista product line. the Server OSes maintain the "model year" designation they've had since 2000. There will be no "basic/premium/business/ultimate"; it will merely evolve from the product line since 2000: standard/enterprise/datacentre/SBS/Web, with "File server" and "Medium business" targeted editions thrown in as new choices. The "File Server" edition will be a purpose-built, reduced-cost version targeted at Linux/BSD with Samba installs no doubt. Just as always, I expect the web server will be available on the same editions as in 2003, but will only be "unlimited" if you buy the cheap web edition or spend thousands on "external connector licenses" or CALs.
or as another example, try Google
I'd love to see someone do something on the scale of google and *NOT* use Linux.
MP3 Search Engine
So... Is it a hobby? Or a small-time outfit? :-D
---->point
(you)
----------
Actually, yes it was both when it started. Slashdot started as "Chips and Dips", Malda's personal website in 1997. Soon after he and a few buddies started writing a bit of Perl code to allow for discussion and moderation around the articles they posted. It was, in that brief early time exactly that: a small-time hobbyist outfit.
Of course now it is the mother of all sites and corporately owned. And in fact, Sourceforge Incorporated probably does indeed consider $400 to be chump change. The savings in licensing costs very long ago ceased to be relevant in the choice to use Linux and Apache for Slashdot. Consider these observations:
1) Slashdot STARTED as a "small time hobby outfit" which made the initial choice of Linux, Apache and Perl the only real choice when cost WAS a factor. Linux or FreeBSD were the only vialble and affordable OS options as well, at a time when expensive Solaris was closed-server-OS king.
2) Slashdot started in 1997. Back then MS Windows NT Server and IIS sucked worse than a $2 hooker. Apache was king and all the rest were expensive, or sucked or both. Linux and Apache could take a daily slashdotting on a couple of boxes whereas Windows NT would have to reboot daily and would require a full height rack packed with server gear to do the same.
3) if it aint broke don't fix it--there is a lot of time and effort put into the perl code and MySQL database that is used in slashcode. When they needed to handle the load they deployed it over mod_perl. To move to Windows would require a lot of work to completely rewrite the app, or else tons of frustration dealing with putting Apache and nod_perl onto Windows.
4) Politics. Slashdot is news for NERDS. Windows is pointy-haired-boss/MCSE-dweeb stuff. Linux and BSD and Apache and other Free software is "elite". Slashdot is also all about Free software as The Right Thing to Do. WHy would an advocate of open source put any effort into deploying its premiere site using closed tools, even if it were cheaper or had technical advantages? It'd be like Microsoft migrating servers to Linux.
I think you've alluded to the most interesting part of this story: Microsoft is being forced to lower their prices (or even eliminate them) in order to compete with free software. This isn't a new phenomenon, of course -- they haven't been able to charge for IIS or IE, for example, due to competition from free software -- but it seems that it is happening frequently.
If I had stock in MSFT, I would start selling it once they announce that they've made any significant reduction in the cost of MS Office; it's one of the biggest cash cows for the company, and any sign of weakness in that space is their worst nightmare.
Only 8? At least they have been consistent with server OS versions.
Windows XP: 2 versions
Windows 2003 Server: 8 versions
Windows Vista: 6 versions
Windows 2008 Server: 8 versions
If the pattern holds up, it will be like this:
Windows 7: 18 versions
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I have to wonder if it's because of increased security efforts by people using Apache to turn off ServerTokens so that the system no longer advertises what version of software is running in production?
Most of the servers that we run in production do not announce they run apache, but I don't know of any way of turning this off in IIS.
It's not like 2005 came around and suddenly people stopped using Apache. There must be an explanation for the massive decline in Netcraft's charts
Well, its a catch-22 situation.
If i use MS Server to face the internet, then i risk getting hacked almost on a daily basis from some script kiddie...
if i don't use it, i need to pay Microsoft huge licensing fees and since i can't afford to pay the extortion, i risk being reported to BSA...
On a totally-different topic, anyone using Microsoft server for their internet-facing tasks without adequate (PhD equipped) hardening, DOES deserve the hacking they get....
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
After reading the article and viewing the graphs(just look how many web servers are out there) it really 'hit home' how bad it would be if Microsoft dominated the 'server space'.
At present there are many different web servers in use today and it was something I took for granted. I am a heavy Internet user and when I am visiting web sites I never give a second thought about what server it is running on - everything *usually* works within my browser.
Do you know why?
These web servers follow *open standards* using standard protocols and published specifications.
Now imagine if Microsoft dominated the web server market. They will have a commanding share of the OS, web browser and server market. Once this is in place then you just know these 'standards' will drift away and eventually rely on *Microsoft* standards.
The seamless nature of browsing the internet will eventually disappear.
Eventually Microsoft's servers would be modified to serve content to 'Explorer' only - if you use a different browser you would get a 'blank' screen or message stating 'this site is best viewed in Internet Explorer'.
Internet Explorer would exhibit the same behavior, if it detected a non-Microsoft server again a message would appear instead of the web-site informing the user that the site is unavailable or incompatible.
If you're not running Microsoft Explorer your pages won't render properly - users complain & companies get nervous.
If you're not running a Microsoft server stack your pages won't be served properly - users complain & companies get nervous.
Microsoft become the de-facto standard because it will be *perceived* as the most conservative and least risky option.
If you run your own business you can look forward to ever-increasing overheads.
The barrier to entry will again be high, Microsoft and their many partners are set to earn *huge* revenues and of course any competition will be extinguished.
Microsoft has an abundance of patience and it will probably take years for this to happen.
The Internet as you know it will become bland, colourless, safe, corporation and media friendly.
Embrace, Extend & Extinguish.
It's a sad way of doing business, if they were actually respectful and *co-operate* with IT industry they can still be a successful company without having to destroy everthing.
I have had difficulties in the past because updates on Windows take ages to install and I needed to
Sorry, I don't agree.It wouldn't in the desktop market for the fact that many people rely on their proprietary technologies (outlook, Microsoft Office formats), shops don't sell Linux in the computer shops and go, "Well, sir. If you want Windows Vista home addon, it will cost you 50USD more.". People have used Windows in the past, and thus are more reluctant to try something else too.
Plus, there is a even larger issue, Microsoft software is free. What do I mean by free? Everybody has that someone who can get them a free copy of any Microsoft software they need *cough*illegally*cough*. If you give most people a choice, between Microsoft software for free and Linux software for free, they are going to choose the item that they have more experience with and they are sure they want. Of course, there are always the exceptions, I am just talking about the majority.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.