Microsoft Licensing Primer
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
No kidding. Someone should do a study as to how much cost and time is in the licensing overhead for Windows. It would be very interesting.
Yeah, but who would pay for it?
Always the problem in IT. So often the answer is "something no one wants to pay for" that there are few ways to get good answers.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that MS paying for this would make the most sense - but of course we know that they would never do it because it just shows how much of a bad deal MS licensing is.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
No kidding. Someone should do a study as to how much cost and time is in the licensing overhead for Windows. It would be very interesting.
Yeah, but who would pay for it?
Always the problem in IT. So often the answer is "something no one wants to pay for" that there are few ways to get good answers.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that MS paying for this would make the most sense - but of course we know that they would never do it because it just shows how much of a bad deal MS licensing is.
MS paying for it would make the least sense, IMHO. They are the ones with all of the financial interest in no one knowing how much licensing as a concept is costing them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@johnhooks said:
This whole conversation makes me so happy I deal with Linux.
No kidding. Someone should do a study as to how much cost and time is in the licensing overhead for Windows. It would be very interesting.
Yeah, but who would pay for it?
Always the problem in IT. So often the answer is "something no one wants to pay for" that there are few ways to get good answers.
From an outsiders perspective, it seems that MS paying for this would make the most sense - but of course we know that they would never do it because it just shows how much of a bad deal MS licensing is.
MS paying for it would make the least sense, IMHO. They are the ones with all of the financial interest in no one knowing how much licensing as a concept is costing them.
That's what the second part of my statement was saying.
-
I know the Microsoft SAM audit wasted about 2-3 hours of my day for an entire week.
-
Why wasn't I informed of this Microsoft SAM audit, and what does it entail?
-
@DustinB3403 It is a self audit of that is conducted by Microsoft Partners on behalf of Microsoft, you have to verify/list all software installed, then they compare it to what they show you have licensed and if you are short you are required to bring it up to compliance. They say it is a voluntary audit, but they also say if you don't do it then they will hand it over to Microsoft's legal department and may go through an actual BSA audit.
-
Fun times, so did you pass, fail, or decline?
-
@DustinB3403 I had two weeks to do it, turned it in last week and have not heard another word from them... I'm fully compliant, i know I am... it was just a hassle and complete waste of my time.
-
Knowing our company they'd probably decline and then our Legal team would send a bill for the time if we went to audit.
-
@Jason said:
Knowing our company they'd probably decline and then our Legal team would send a bill for the time if we went to audit.
I'm sure in the licensing agreement they can require an audit that you must pay for.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
Knowing our company they'd probably decline and then our Legal team would send a bill for the time if we went to audit.
I'm sure in the licensing agreement they can require an audit that you must pay for.
I'm pretty sure that that is written into the license agreement
That's how the whole system works. -
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
Knowing our company they'd probably decline and then our Legal team would send a bill for the time if we went to audit.
I'm sure in the licensing agreement they can require an audit that you must pay for.
Not everything in the Microsoft license agreement is legal. we have fought and won before.
-
@BRRABill said:
I assume a lot of places just look the other way, because it makes no sense to follow the licensing. Kind of like doing 56 in a 55.
I imagine this is generally the case. (Although here in Europe it's more like 90 in a 70 as we're generally less law abiding)
Datacenter may cover your Windows licences, but a proper DR test requires you to run your applications, so you would need SA or additional licences to cover these (SQL Server, Exchange, Sharepoint etc etc).
-
It was the basis of my "fight" the entire time.
Yes, I understand that it is the MS licensing, and yes I understand there are other options out there. And yes I understand people could take advantage of it.
But for disaster recovery testing, I think they should allow it. It's just finding a more convenient way for admins to quickly recover systems.
-
@BRRABill said:
But for disaster recovery testing, I think they should allow it. It's just finding a more convenient way for admins to quickly recover systems.
But there are really convenient options. It's not like those don't exist and aren't used all of the time. It's just that you need to license them. But you CAN do recovery very easily.
The real issue is using Windows systems without being able to or willing to afford the cost to do so. Windows has a cost, which we all accept, to a point. The issues arise when we (or companies) don't want to spend enough to do it "right." Then it feels like there is a limitation with the product, but really it is just a lack of willingness to pay for what it cost to run it. But Windows is always a choice, as are the features like this kind of recovery.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
But there are really convenient options. It's not like those don't exist and aren't used all of the time. It's just that you need to license them. But you CAN do recovery very easily.
The real issue is using Windows systems without being able to or willing to afford the cost to do so. Windows has a cost, which we all accept, to a point. The issues arise when we (or companies) don't want to spend enough to do it "right." Then it feels like there is a limitation with the product, but really it is just a lack of willingness to pay for what it cost to run it. But Windows is always a choice, as are the features like this kind of recovery.
I fully understand this now.
I understand that I can do EXACTLY what I want, which IMO makes for a much safe/better/quicker backup and recovery. As long as I buy another license. Or, in the case of larger companies, am already properly licensed.
My take has always been that making it more difficult to backup and restore is not in the interest of anyone. Even though Microsoft could theoretically make more money,
a -- they probably aren't because most people just run the backups anyway without proper licensing (most probably unaware)
b -- they will push people to other systems when backups fail or they realize the "cost of Windows" as you sayDatto, StorageCraft, etc ... these companies have great products that take great backups, and easily let you know if they are working. We're not talking about running systems here. We are talking about EASILY checking to see if backups have worked. That's it. Yes, it's possible to do another way, but again, that adds complexity and downtime. Yes, there is a cost to those things, but considering how important backup and recovery is, I think it should be allowed.
