Vmware Audit
-
This reminds me of the Southpark episode where Apple is attempting to force people to read the EULA.
-
Out of curiosity do you have a digital copy of the EULA your company signed with VMWare. I now want to read the damn thing!
-
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
Out of curiosity do you have a digital copy of the EULA your company signed with VMWare. I now want to read the damn thing!
It has "Vmware confidential" on the top and bottom so I can assume we are suppose to share it. I don't think ours is special it's the normal EULA..
Something of it is on here: https://www.vmware.com/download/eula/esxi50_eula.html
-
@Jason said in Vmware Audit:
Yay, Many many audits for us.. Not sure why.
Anyone ever done one of these? Vmware is a first for me.
I've never even heard of someone getting audited by VMware. Add that to the list of "why we don't want to run that if we don't have to."
-
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
How can VMWare demand you keep information for your Windows Licensing. As if it has some bearing on the use of VMWare.
This is another reason to avoid VMWare. Bullshit auditing practices.
How can they not. It's a contract, they can require whatever they want. You are free to decline and use another product if you aren't okay with the requirements.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vmware Audit:
How can they not. It's a contract, they can require whatever they want. You are free to decline and use another product if you aren't okay with the requirements.
I suppose, but should they also demand to know your bowel movement schedule?
"Reporting of any changes" that means if you lost power and the system rebooted, you have to have record of that.
Well this sounds like a great time to move away from VMWare...
-
I have a feeling we will be paying the fee for the audits. We are in compliance with our active stuff but, we don't keep documentation that specific on changes and stuff over the years like they want.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
I suppose, but should they also demand to know your bowel movement schedule?
Absolutely. Whoever decided on VMware in this case decided that the requirements of the audit were worth it. That whatever value VMware brought to the table was greater than the up front cost, licensing overhead and the stipulations of the EULA. If VMware wants to be paid in girly giggles (who gets THAT reference?) or BM tracking or licensing audits is up to them. If that cost is worth the advantages of the software is up to the people buying it.
It's all freedom of choice. No one held a gun to anyone's head. The company decided it was worth it, now they have to pay the price that they agreed to pay.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
@scottalanmiller said in Vmware Audit:
How can they not. It's a contract, they can require whatever they want. You are free to decline and use another product if you aren't okay with the requirements.
I suppose, but should they also demand to know your bowel movement schedule?
"Reporting of any changes" that means if you lost power and the system rebooted, you have to have record of that.
Well this sounds like a great time to move away from VMWare...
Sadly Hyper-V isn't really "enterpise ready"
We could use Ctrix XenServer but Ctrix has some crazy EULAs too.
-
@Jason Citrix no longer licenses the product, they offer support only. The terms of that EULA should pertain only to the support offered.
Anything else and I'd just use the "non-supported" version (which is identical to the supported version)
-
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
@Jason Citrix no longer licenses the product, they offer support only. The terms of that EULA should pertain only to the support offered.
Not sure where you get that. This is the EULA you have to sign..
https://www.citrix.com/content/dam/citrix/en_us/documents/buy/enterprise-software-eula.pdf
-
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
@Jason Citrix no longer licenses the product, they offer support only. The terms of that EULA should pertain only to the support offered.
That's not how a EULA or Contract works. It can pertain to literally anything that is not barred by law.
For example, a EULA can require you to dance a jig on the first day of spring naked. But it can't require you to pirate software.
If you agree to the EULA, anything legal in it is required.
-
This is the terms of service I agree to.
http://xenserver.org/overview-xenserver-open-source-virtualization/gplv2-license/13-about-xenserver-open-source/152-eula.html (without support)
-
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
This is the terms of service I agree to.
http://xenserver.org/overview-xenserver-open-source-virtualization/gplv2-license/13-about-xenserver-open-source/152-eula.html (without support)
It's not realistic to not have support on thousands of servers. When the Sh*t breaks out it can become a whirlwind fast..
Thats why we have RHEL and not CentOS for many things as well (some is CentOS).
-
@Jason I understand that. At your scale you need support and because of the need, the business will now bleed through the nose for several months.
Sorry.
-
@Jason said in Vmware Audit:
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
This is the terms of service I agree to.
http://xenserver.org/overview-xenserver-open-source-virtualization/gplv2-license/13-about-xenserver-open-source/152-eula.html (without support)
It's not realistic to not have support on thousands of servers. When the Sh*t breaks out it can become a whirlwind fast..
Thats why we have RHEL and not CentOS for many things as well (some is CentOS).
This is funny - that company I mention from time time has thousands of RHEL boxes - and they too have support, but how many times have they called support? Zero? Why? because they have people on staff as good or better than the RHEL people themselves. They actively participate in reviewing and commenting on RFCs and other protocols regulations to get things working as they need them to for their platform.
I asked why they keep paying for support to RH? They didn't know.
-
@Dashrender said in Vmware Audit:
@Jason said in Vmware Audit:
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
This is the terms of service I agree to.
http://xenserver.org/overview-xenserver-open-source-virtualization/gplv2-license/13-about-xenserver-open-source/152-eula.html (without support)
It's not realistic to not have support on thousands of servers. When the Sh*t breaks out it can become a whirlwind fast..
Thats why we have RHEL and not CentOS for many things as well (some is CentOS).
This is funny - that company I mention from time time has thousands of RHEL boxes - and they too have support, but how many times have they called support? Zero? Why? because they have people on staff as good or better than the RHEL people themselves. They actively participate in reviewing and commenting on RFCs and other protocols regulations to get things working as they need them to for their platform.
I asked why they keep paying for support to RH? They didn't know.
I've seen enormous companies look at that and drop RH support just because RH products were so good that support wasn't needed. Which sucks for RH, because RH has great support.
When I was at the Wall St. firm we never needed RH support, never once in nearly a decade. We would use them, but only to back us up, never to solve the issue. They were great, but not needed at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Vmware Audit:
@Dashrender said in Vmware Audit:
@Jason said in Vmware Audit:
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
This is the terms of service I agree to.
http://xenserver.org/overview-xenserver-open-source-virtualization/gplv2-license/13-about-xenserver-open-source/152-eula.html (without support)
It's not realistic to not have support on thousands of servers. When the Sh*t breaks out it can become a whirlwind fast..
Thats why we have RHEL and not CentOS for many things as well (some is CentOS).
This is funny - that company I mention from time time has thousands of RHEL boxes - and they too have support, but how many times have they called support? Zero? Why? because they have people on staff as good or better than the RHEL people themselves. They actively participate in reviewing and commenting on RFCs and other protocols regulations to get things working as they need them to for their platform.
I asked why they keep paying for support to RH? They didn't know.
I've seen enormous companies look at that and drop RH support just because RH products were so good that support wasn't needed. Which sucks for RH, because RH has great support.
When I was at the Wall St. firm we never needed RH support, never once in nearly a decade. We would use them, but only to back us up, never to solve the issue. They were great, but not needed at all.
So, so you were only really paying them to check a box on a form or to placate someone.
-
@Dashrender said in Vmware Audit:
@scottalanmiller said in Vmware Audit:
@Dashrender said in Vmware Audit:
@Jason said in Vmware Audit:
@DustinB3403 said in Vmware Audit:
This is the terms of service I agree to.
http://xenserver.org/overview-xenserver-open-source-virtualization/gplv2-license/13-about-xenserver-open-source/152-eula.html (without support)
It's not realistic to not have support on thousands of servers. When the Sh*t breaks out it can become a whirlwind fast..
Thats why we have RHEL and not CentOS for many things as well (some is CentOS).
This is funny - that company I mention from time time has thousands of RHEL boxes - and they too have support, but how many times have they called support? Zero? Why? because they have people on staff as good or better than the RHEL people themselves. They actively participate in reviewing and commenting on RFCs and other protocols regulations to get things working as they need them to for their platform.
I asked why they keep paying for support to RH? They didn't know.
I've seen enormous companies look at that and drop RH support just because RH products were so good that support wasn't needed. Which sucks for RH, because RH has great support.
When I was at the Wall St. firm we never needed RH support, never once in nearly a decade. We would use them, but only to back us up, never to solve the issue. They were great, but not needed at all.
So, so you were only really paying them to check a box on a form or to placate someone.
Totally for politics. Someone high up needed a checkbox that says "paying for support that isn't the support we hire already."
-
We've need support a few times, well never for RHEL. but for Vmware. It's always bugs that somehow no one else has found..
