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."
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.
In response to today's Microsoft announcement the Apache Software Foundation announces that they will cut their price by 100% and increase the allowed number of users to googolplex + 1.
Since 2008 will be based on the Vista core, you'll need a dedicated person to sit at the console to address the "Someone is trying to access your website, cancel or alaw?" dialogs.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
There are at least eight different "versions" of Windows Server 2008:, depending on what features are crippled:
This change only affects the crippling level on #8.
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.
Last time I checked, Slashdot was still using Linux.
So... Is it a hobby? Or a small-time outfit? :-D
Most large changes relate to registrars (e.g. GoDaddy) changing their infrastructure on servers serving pages for parked domains (as parked domains make up a rather alarming percentage of domain names).
Brought to you by the numbers π, e, and 0x1B.
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.
Thank you for telling us without using profanity, or threatening to beat anybody up
I don't care why you're posting AC
Why do they continue to quote Netcraft when http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200712/index.html has always put Apache ahead of windows? Is it that Netcraft is more of an authority than Security Space.
Back to the topic...I think Microsoft wants to claim bragging rights having come from very far behind when compared to Apache.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. On the other hand, that's what Microsoft uses to refer to the various versions of a product (they seem to alternate between "SKU" and "Edition" with no rhyme or reason why one word is used over the other), so that's what I used to refer to them. I don't like it, but at least it's not as horribly misused as phrases like "begs the question" (at least "SKU" in this context could potentially be referring to a real Stock Keeping Unit).
Also, your examples aren't quite right. You're referring to instances of a bag of chips or a glass of lemonade, while the Windows Server SKU references are to types of items that can be sold. A better example might be, "I prefer the yellow lemonade SKU over the pink lemonade." Still just as silly, but at least now it's correct :).
It says "post", Mr. Dyslexic.
That's Mr. Lysdexic to you, buddy.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
One aspect to modern computing that was largely unforeseen by Microsoft is the server farm. Well, Microsoft was completely blindsided by the Internet in general, but a command-line OS was something that Microsoft had, threw away, and then denied ever existed.
Suppose Gates had had a little more vision, realized that the CLI still had a place in the world, and thrown a billion or two into DOS development? Suppose Microsoft had turned DOS into a real contender for the server room, maybe tacking a CLI and some utilities on top of the NT Kernel? They could have called it MS-DOS/NT. Sure, it wouldn't be DOS as we all knew and loved it (hah) but then they wouldn't have been caught flat-footed when people started assembling hundreds and thousands of computers into racks and connecting them to the Internet.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Only hobbyists and small-time outfits that run their own hosts would mind a measly $400."
That is just the tip of the Microsoft corporate licensing nightmare. At my government agency employer, we only use Linux for all our web servers. Why? Because we are developers and we want to drop a web/database/file/email/proxy/printer/whatever server wherever it is needed without being bogged down in a sea of Microsoft red tape.
GPL means one simple licence: use it on any machine you want, whenever you want. Absolute flexibility. No counting CPUs, no counting seats, no worrying about whether you bought enough licences. And no over-purchasing just to make sure. The GPL means freedom from licence hell. It is just what us developers want: an OS and software stack that we can use wherever, whenever, however. It allows us to concentrate on technical issues.
Freedom matters.
I am anarch of all I survey.
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.
My debian etch VPS takes up less than 12mb ram, and less 500mb HDD space. The hardware requirements for Server-2008 are astronomical by comparison. But, if you are running some huge commercial site, I don't suppose the hardware requirements are a big deal.
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.
"Wrong Linux requires more because Linux has more tweaks and settings on how admins want it."
Only if they were required for basic function would that be considered "more administration". In fact, usually this means less administration because you can set up Linux in a way that suits your environment faster than Windows, which rarely-if-at-all will be able to do so. If you're willing to live with the Windows feature subset, then you definitely don't have any more administration to do. But in that case you are probably hemoraging money in the time your users have to work around the computer setup.
"Wrong Windows is easier updated."
What's hard about yum and the autoupdate services?
"And with Linux you need it as well, unless you are a Linux expert."
If the people handling internet-facing boxes are non-experts, then you are a likely candidate to be 0wned.
"And in that case your salary is higher (or should be) than most Windows administrators"
Not where I live. In fact, everywhere I've lived a Windows admin for a small company makes about 20% more than a Linux admin.
"With Linux in theory you have the ability to fix it yourself."
But it's not just you. It's you and a whole slew of interested parties. In addition, you don't have to wait for it to become MS's priority. If it is your priority, you can always hire someone to do it for you.
In most of your answers I'm sensing that you are forgetting that computers are supposed to serve a purpose - that's their whole reason for existing. Don't worry, most MS people I know think this way. They view computers as simply a cost of doing business, and therefore are worried only about the cheapest way to setup computers for everyone in the office. Most Linux people on the other hand are usually trying to accomplish something on computers. So yes, it is cheaper to have an idiot MS administrator baby-sit machines that are used by office workers to play solitaire or host their porn. But when you have actual business requirements that need to be fulfilled, with Linux you can just do it, while with Windows you have to go through the toll-booths hoping that the features you need won't be held for ransom at the end of the trail.
"And if you do fix it yourself, you are taking away time that you should be using for administration tasks."
Here's the whole problem - in Windows, your business is just plain screwed. You don't seem to be calculating that into your cost calculations. How much does it cost for your business to be screwed?
"No there are not sever licenses. But as illustrated in your previous points your increased salary (should be) does make up quite nicely for the "no license" fees."
I'm curious why a competent Linux admin should make more money than a competent Windows admin. Competent admins all earn their keep, while all incompetent ones should find other work.
Let me go through what my company did in one year with Linux on the server (this was in 2004):
This assumes an existing single company server of either Win or Linux.
Groupware:
Linux price: $0.00
Estimated MS price:
hardware: $2,000 (MS best practice is to use own server for this)
software: $5,104 (2000 server + exchange + CALs)
Development/Deployment for Web Apps (web+database):
Linux price:
hardware: $800.00 for server
software: $0.00
Estimated MS Price: $14,196 - $29,196 (MSDN + SQL Server + Win2k*2)
hardware: $1600.00 for servers
Domain management (authentication+resource administration):
Linux price: $0
Estimated MS Price:
hardware: $2,000
software: $1,500
Telephone PBX server:
Linux solution:
hardware: $1600 (including phones)
software: $0.00
Windows solution:
not available. Most proprietary solutions were about $10k
So, how many admins does it take to do all this? We
Engineering and the Ultimate
Just FYI, Windows 2003 for Small Business Server was available in 2003, which would've reduced your cost figures immensively (around 1400US$ starting price (premium) including 5 clients, plus 700US$ for each additional 5 clients).
SBS Premium includes SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Edition, Exchange Server 2003, and runs on a single machine. SBS CALs are also valid for other Windows Server 2003 servers in your network, e.G. if you would've bought a Web Edition machine, you wouldn't need to purchase any CALs and run it either against a local SQL Server Express instance or against the Workgroup Edition on the SBS Server.
Back in 2004, Office Communication Server 2007 wasn't released, but right now it's a full blown voip solution from Microsoft (which works pretty well, and integrates nicely). It isn't expensive either, at around 1000US$ per Server, and around 20US$ per CAL.
I don't intend to change your mind, just wanted to show you that the stuff isn't as expensive as you're trying to make it. Also, if you're a development shop that sells application based on Microsoft Windows, you can apply to become an MS Partner, which costs around 1500 US$ per year, and gives you all the licenses you might want (for internal production use), plus an MSDN subscription.
It's interesting to see Microsoft's actions here. They seem to think that the best way to handle an Open Source based competitor is to lower the price, but maintain their current proprietary licence. They just can't let go of the sources, because their belief in proprietary software is rock-solid. It's simply unthinkable. Yet, they're just sitting there while LAMP is gradually taking over the market completely. Sure, price is an important factor when deciding upon which software to use, but that's not all. Microsoft is blind to the fact that businesses is settling for OSS competitors not only for its generally lower price, but also for the customisation possibilities and the fact that bugs generally get squished faster within OSS than in its proprietary counterparts. If Microsoft really wants to reclaim market share, they really need to rethink their licencing.
Actually, no..
Microsoft has taken yet another page from the *NIX play book and constructed a model called "Server Core" for 2008:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/servercore.mspx
This is essentially an ultra-small footprint server installation to run server apps on top of it, it doesnt even have a window manager- you boot directly to the "cmd.exe" prompt.
Gee where have we seen this before- oh i know it started back in the 70s...
....move along....nothing to see here....