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."

Comments

Still have to pay for the OS

[filbranden]

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.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[calebt3]

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.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[a-zarkon!]

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...

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[a-zarkon!]

"Will install Apache and MySQL for beer and nachos" -Me

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[MightyMartian]

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."

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[filbranden]

"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.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[unoengborg]

OS-X is very nice for the desktop, but I would stay away from it on the server side, not because there is all that much technically wrong with it, but because Apple don't seam to get the server market.

By hard earned experience with Apple server products I have learned that you can't trust them to support their products over long times. The all of a sudden discontinues products without any resonable migraton paths to the successr, if there even is a successor. E.g. they dicontiued A/UX and replaced with an Apple version of AIX that they then dropped totally in just a couple of years.

When they distribute updates they have more than once totally destroyed, customized settings, and the open source software that comes with the server version of MacOS-X is often incomplete or lacking in functionality compared to the same software on Linux or Solaris.

Chosing between Windows and Mac, I would choose Mac any day. MacOS-X is at least simple to use.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Clover_Kicker]

You don't think jwz was advocating for Windows, do you?

http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[totally bogus dude]

Apple don't seam to get the server market

I hear they've got the sewing market all stitched up, though.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[jacquesm]

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.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[Percy_Blakeney]

And if or when they decide they've recaptured sufficient market share they will increase their fees

I think (and hope) they're going to have a tougher time killing off this competitor...

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.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[calebt3]

Let's say the license for that domain controller is $500. And you cost your employer the typical IT salary + benefits of $100,000 a year -- about $50 an hour. If it takes you more than ten hours to setup the Samba domain controller, it's a bad idea Sorry, but I have to nitpick. The $500 domain controller will still need some time to configure. Maybe Samba starts being a waste of time at 55 hours?

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[pembo13]

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

I have to take issue with this statement.

Let us assume a LAMP stack which comes via a support subscription (eg. RHEL). And lets assume variables such as customer support and pricing are equal, I would still go with the LAMP stack. I have experience with both, and I find LAMP to be easier to use yet much more versatile. A Microsoft web stack can definitely get the job done... but I find things easier to accomplish with LAMP -- I definitely don't work with Microsoft stacks without getting paid for it.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[foniksonik]

Not if you're using it with a Active Directory system with automatic login to an intranet ala Sharepoint...

I agree with your logic but MS doesn't do logic... they do licenses and IP... so all of their technology is set up on the premise that they need you to buy lots of licenses to do 'anything'...

though when you do cough up enough money, their integrated suites of software are pretty useful, as long as you need to do exactly what the software is capable of and nothing else.

As soon as you need to do something else, you'll either have to hire an extremely over-priced development firm, a team of developers and all the overhead of a new department - or wait until MS decides that enough of your peers want to buy the thing you need for it to be profitable to them.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[rvw]

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).

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[jimicus]

Three words for you: Client Access Licenses. Workstation editions of Windows haven't shipped with a free CAL in years.

Re:Still have to pay for the OS

[rvw]

You just can have a linux box with apache doing reverse proxy and caching in front of it, and ... This is exactly what is not allowed, like I said already. The "user" is not a computer, but strangely enough a human being. Where is the world going...? :-P

Apache responds

[Stamen]

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.

The downside...

[Junta]

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.

Re:The downside...

[RuBLed]

yes, but now you could have more than 50 dedicated persons answering Allow or Cancel...

Re:The downside...

[explosivejared]

Didn't you read the article! The primary focus is not "to increase market share" against MySQL and Apache as the Netcraft fud would have you believe. The real reason is this is a surreptitious physical-user based fix to sending out too many cancel allow dialogs. Microsoft completely misjudged the boxes functionality and popularity, which resulted in masses of dialog boxes being excessively consumed. Microsoft was getting so many bug reports about exhausted screen space from all the boxes that they had to something. This is just another case of MS providing relief to customers who are unable to responsibly control their MS lust, in this case for cancel allow dialogs.

I swear it was in the article. Why are you all looking at me? What?!

Google

[pweitz]

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.

Re:Google

[micheas]

If you read netcrafts definition of a website you will find some sort of strange things. almost all the google sites are blogger sites, over half the IIS sites are myspace profiles and live.com blogs.

The recent decline in IIS and gain by apache is almost entirely myspace to facebook migration.

The other big factors are godaddy parking is IIS, most other parking domains are apache, and then there is the relatively small number of sites which are all the sites that generate all the content that you would actually want to connect to the internet for.

Netcraft is has a bit of a problem with figuring out what is a website. Is a myspace profile a website? No, but what if someone is running a music site off of their myspace profile and have it branded and put real effort into and is its own destination?

Do geocities accounts count as websites? most of them did get counted and when geocities popularity waned so did BSDs market share.

What if you wild card a domain name and have a script generate unique content for almost every possible hostname, and submitted tens of thousands of the hostnames of that server to netcraft? How many websites would that be? Some creative spamming by Microsoft or their enemies would make netcraft statistics pretty meaningless. Also Netcraft only reports on the front facing server which grossly understates zope and tomcats presence.

There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and netcraft website counts.

Eight different versions of Windows Server

[Animats]

There are at least eight different "versions" of Windows Server 2008:, depending on what features are crippled:

1. Windows Server 2008 Standard, $999 (with five Client Access Licenses, or CALs);
2. Standard without Hyper-V, $971 (with five CALs);
3. Enterprise, $3,999 (with 25 CALs);
4. Enterprise without Hyper-V, $3,971 (with 25 CALs);
5. Datacenter, $2,999 (per processor);
6. Datacenter without Hyper-V, $2,971 (per processor);
7. Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems, $2,999 (per processor); and
8. Windows Web Server 2008, $469.

This change only affects the crippling level on #8.

Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server

[mallardtheduck]

Actually, there are 4 (consumer) editions of XP: Home, Pro, MCE, Tablet.
That means there will be either 8 or 9 editions of Windows 7, depending on weather it is a geometric or arithmetic progression.

If we attempt to count Windows 2000 (1 desktop, 3 server editions, according to Wikipedia), then we get 1, 4, 6 for desktop versions and a resulting polynomial formula of 0.5(x^2)+4.5x-3 (where x is 1 for 2000, 2 for XP and 3 for Vista) meaning Windows 7 will have (if we take x as 4) 23 editions.
If we instead use x=version no. (5 for 2000, 5.1 for XP and 6 for Vista) then we get the formula -27.778(x^2)+310.56x-857.33 then Windows 7 would have -44.532 editions.

For servers, 1, 2, 3 numbering gives a formula of -2.5(x^2)+12.5x-7 with Sever 7 having 3 editions. With version numbering (and assuming that Server 2008 releases with a 6.0 version number), we get -25(x^2)+280x-772 and Server 7 having -37 editions (assuming it has 7.0 version number).

However, it is best to disregard formulas with negative x^2 coefficients, since they will all eventually result in negative values, therefore 23 versions of Windows 7 seems the most reasonable answer here, unless we take negative edition counts as complete Microsoft failure (CMF).

For most of those hosting, the cost is negligable

[WebCowboy]

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.

Re:Suspicious.

[wuputah]

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).

Point seems have been missed here

[WebCowboy]

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.

Re:so what

[ScrewMaster]

It says "post", Mr. Dyslexic.

That's Mr. Lysdexic to you, buddy.

It's All About Control

[mrpacmanjel]

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.

Re:I call BS

[lukas84]

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.