CALs: Silly or Not?
-
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@eddiejennings said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
I'm simply imagining a world where you buy a server license (that's a the price that it would be with the server+CAL model, rather than Core model) and that's it. Or better yet, a world where you don't buy a server license and just install Fedora or CentOS.
Right, but that's the only way it works - not buying software. You have to make the leap to the thing that you want is to not have to pay. Now the complaint isn't about the licensing, just that you want things for free. Which is fine, everyone wants things for free... but it's doesn't really matter.
Yeah, I ought to have said as much in my original reply to I Can't Even. However, you did give me a good idea for the next time I have to explain the line item of CALs: Show what the cost would be if we didn't use the CAL model.
-
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
The idea behind CALs, great. The implementation of it, horrible.
Huh? What do you mean? It's the easiest licensing implementation I know of. How could it be improved?
I already know you don't think it can be improved....
By actually managing licensing properly instead of "Here's a piece of paper to file." By managing licensing properly, yes, this would take a little bit of actual resources on a computer in order to track things.
I know @scottalanmiller, @JaredBusch, and myself will never agree on this one.
Can't be done. The paper is so superior to that. I'm so glad that they aren't doing that, how do you propose that they track such a thing? Hint: it's impossible.
Well, I've seen it done. Not with Microsoft's licensing granted (it would get harry to track what CAL is a device and which is a user CAL.) Any sane system would be easy to track, which is where we'll always differ.
Actually, no, this system is 100% sane and impossible to track from a technology standpoint. It's conceptually nonsensical. There is nothing sane about thinking that you could just track users from a computer. How does a computer ever know how many users there are? Name any system in the universe that can do this?
-
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
The idea behind CALs, great. The implementation of it, horrible.
Huh? What do you mean? It's the easiest licensing implementation I know of. How could it be improved?
I already know you don't think it can be improved....
By actually managing licensing properly instead of "Here's a piece of paper to file." By managing licensing properly, yes, this would take a little bit of actual resources on a computer in order to track things.
I know @scottalanmiller, @JaredBusch, and myself will never agree on this one.
Can't be done. The paper is so superior to that. I'm so glad that they aren't doing that, how do you propose that they track such a thing? Hint: it's impossible.
Well, I've seen it done. Not with Microsoft's licensing granted (it would get harry to track what CAL is a device and which is a user CAL.) Any sane system would be easy to track, which is where we'll always differ.
Like Autodesk or Solid works licensing? Give me Microsoft's paper licenses any day of the week.
-
@eddiejennings said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@eddiejennings said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
I'm simply imagining a world where you buy a server license (that's a the price that it would be with the server+CAL model, rather than Core model) and that's it. Or better yet, a world where you don't buy a server license and just install Fedora or CentOS.
Right, but that's the only way it works - not buying software. You have to make the leap to the thing that you want is to not have to pay. Now the complaint isn't about the licensing, just that you want things for free. Which is fine, everyone wants things for free... but it's doesn't really matter.
Yeah, I ought to have said as much in my original reply to I Can't Even. However, you did give me a good idea for the next time I have to explain the line item of CALs: Show what the cost would be if we didn't use the CAL model.
And ask them... if they don't like the cost of Windows, if it makes them feel in any way that it is expensive, why do they choose it? By the nature of them choosing it, they should be happy with the cost.
-
@coliver said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
The idea behind CALs, great. The implementation of it, horrible.
Huh? What do you mean? It's the easiest licensing implementation I know of. How could it be improved?
I already know you don't think it can be improved....
By actually managing licensing properly instead of "Here's a piece of paper to file." By managing licensing properly, yes, this would take a little bit of actual resources on a computer in order to track things.
I know @scottalanmiller, @JaredBusch, and myself will never agree on this one.
Can't be done. The paper is so superior to that. I'm so glad that they aren't doing that, how do you propose that they track such a thing? Hint: it's impossible.
Well, I've seen it done. Not with Microsoft's licensing granted (it would get harry to track what CAL is a device and which is a user CAL.) Any sane system would be easy to track, which is where we'll always differ.
Like Autodesk or Solid works licensing? Give me Microsoft's paper licenses any day of the week.
And those still require paper tracking, it's just always ON TOP OF the automated tracking! I know of no system anywhere that doesn't require the paper tracking, on top of everything else. MS is unique in requiring only the paper.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@coliver said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
The idea behind CALs, great. The implementation of it, horrible.
Huh? What do you mean? It's the easiest licensing implementation I know of. How could it be improved?
I already know you don't think it can be improved....
By actually managing licensing properly instead of "Here's a piece of paper to file." By managing licensing properly, yes, this would take a little bit of actual resources on a computer in order to track things.
I know @scottalanmiller, @JaredBusch, and myself will never agree on this one.
Can't be done. The paper is so superior to that. I'm so glad that they aren't doing that, how do you propose that they track such a thing? Hint: it's impossible.
Well, I've seen it done. Not with Microsoft's licensing granted (it would get harry to track what CAL is a device and which is a user CAL.) Any sane system would be easy to track, which is where we'll always differ.
Like Autodesk or Solid works licensing? Give me Microsoft's paper licenses any day of the week.
And those still require paper tracking, it's just always ON TOP OF the automated tracking! I know of no system anywhere that doesn't require the paper tracking, on top of everything else. MS is unique in requiring only the paper.
Even Linux vendors require both.
-
Windows Server License = license to run the software instance on on a single physical hardware device, or as a VM on a single hardware device.
CAL = license to access the software services by user or by device.
I see the point from both sides.. just do away with CALs, and give unlimited access with the Windows Server license. But that's not how it works with this kind of stuff.
With SolidWorks, each user gets to install the software on their computer and gets to use it.
With Windows Server, there's only one install (on the server), and it provides a service (like DNS). Some places, you'll have 10,000 users using the DNS service provided by that single Windows Server license, in others, for example, only 50 users.
You're paying to use a service vs paying to use an application. That's the difference.
So, CALs are the only kind of thing that makes sense.
-
@jaredbusch said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
As Scott said if you did not have CALs this would cost a lot more
I've been in the room when pricing and packaging are being set for a software product.
To be blunt, if you can't afford $130 (ONE TIME) for an employee to use a WinTel/AD network for 5 years (average time between people updating CAL's and migrating OS's) FIRE SOME EMPLOYEES. That's like ~$2 a month. Unless your a thai rice farmer or something crazy the time spent thinking of completely ripping out all windows boxes is likely more expensive than just paying this.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
How does a computer ever know how many users there are? Name any system in the universe that can do this?
Run a simple automated report against your Users OU....
-
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
I somewhat agree. However, Microsoft (in this case) could not price their stuff so exorbitantly.
Doesn't matter, flat pricing like this would always screw the companies that are smaller compared to bigger ones. It's "taxing the poor".
It's a regressive tax. Also, the majority of Microsofts Revenue comes from the F500. If you think they will drop the price vs. sacrifice the SMB market if they had to make a choice and do a flat price you are crazy. Giving a lower price to SMBs without a reason for it would trigger most favored nation clauses.
I've always laughed at people who love appliance pricing (It's unlimited per box!) vs. per user pricing. On Per User Pricing I know what my cost model for growth is. On an appliance, I might arbitrarily hit a bottleneck. I'm at the mercy of how efficient they implemented their features...
-
@storageninja said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
How does a computer ever know how many users there are? Name any system in the universe that can do this?
Run a simple automated report against your Users OU....
And then your information would be potentially completely wrong. That was the point, since the thing that you license has no connection to OUs.
For example, what if you didn't use AD at all. Not like you get to skip your licensing just because you don't have that one feature.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@storageninja said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
How does a computer ever know how many users there are? Name any system in the universe that can do this?
Run a simple automated report against your Users OU....
And then your information would be potentially completely wrong. That was the point, since the thing that you license has no connection to OUs.
For example, what if you didn't use AD at all. Not like you get to skip your licensing just because you don't have that one feature.
If you use User CALs you don't have to worry about devices. It's an "Or" not an AND was my understanding.
-
@storageninja said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@storageninja said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
How does a computer ever know how many users there are? Name any system in the universe that can do this?
Run a simple automated report against your Users OU....
And then your information would be potentially completely wrong. That was the point, since the thing that you license has no connection to OUs.
For example, what if you didn't use AD at all. Not like you get to skip your licensing just because you don't have that one feature.
If you use User CALs you don't have to worry about devices. It's an "Or" not an AND was my understanding.
You completely missed his point...
You can have 500 users in a company, and no Active Directory. You still need User CALs becasue they are using devices that access the services a Windows Server provides... such as DHCP, DNS, Print Services, computers accessing file shares, network, etc... the list is huge.
In that scenario, your simple Users OU report would provide nothing useful. Going by that report would show you need zero user CALs, when in fact, you may need up to 500.
-
@storageninja said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@storageninja said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
How does a computer ever know how many users there are? Name any system in the universe that can do this?
Run a simple automated report against your Users OU....
And then your information would be potentially completely wrong. That was the point, since the thing that you license has no connection to OUs.
For example, what if you didn't use AD at all. Not like you get to skip your licensing just because you don't have that one feature.
If you use User CALs you don't have to worry about devices. It's an "Or" not an AND was my understanding.
You are correct that it is User CALs OR Device CALs, that much is correct. What is totally not correct is what I was responding to - your bit about AD which had no connection to your user count. Your comment was about using AD to determine users, but as that doesn't work... that was the point.
-
@tim_g said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@storageninja said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@storageninja said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
How does a computer ever know how many users there are? Name any system in the universe that can do this?
Run a simple automated report against your Users OU....
And then your information would be potentially completely wrong. That was the point, since the thing that you license has no connection to OUs.
For example, what if you didn't use AD at all. Not like you get to skip your licensing just because you don't have that one feature.
If you use User CALs you don't have to worry about devices. It's an "Or" not an AND was my understanding.
You completely missed his point...
You can have 500 users in a company, and no Active Directory. You still need User CALs becasue they are using devices that access the services a Windows Server provides... such as DHCP, DNS, Print Services, computers accessing file shares, network, etc... the list is huge.
In that scenario, your simple Users OU report would provide nothing useful. Going by that report would show you need zero user CALs, when in fact, you may need up to 500.
And given that MS is moving people towards Azure AD (which is not AD), albeit slowly, the chances that even die hard 100% MS shops will have an AD OU with all their appropriate users is rapidly becoming anything but likely.
-
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
Your comment was about using AD to determine users, but as that doesn't work... that was the point.
that part doesn't work if you aren't using AD.
Though Scott - you still have to create user accounts to have access, and assuming you're not lieing about the number of users by making people share accounts or deleting them why couldn't user count be done on a server by server basis? (granted this doesn't work as well in a multi-server non AD setup) and I guess if you're providing DB access, you wouldn't have Windows users necessarily - yeah yeah.. OK I get it.
-
@dashrender said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
Your comment was about using AD to determine users, but as that doesn't work... that was the point.
that part doesn't work if you aren't using AD.
Though Scott - you still have to create user accounts to have access...
This is incorrect. User accounts are not a requirement of using Windows servers nor of licensing. This underlying premise is what leads to the bad concept that the computer itself has some means of knowing how many people get services from it.
-
@dashrender said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
... and assuming you're not lieing about the number of users by making people share accounts or deleting them why couldn't user count be done on a server by server basis?
Lieing is a bad term here, the only place you are asked the number of users is in the count of your CALs. Beyond that, there is no place where one could lie in this context. But moving on, if you don't have AD, where do you envision these accounts living?
Let's take this to a non-Windows, really simple set of examples... all of which could be on Windows if it was affordable...
- MangoLassi
- Google DNS
In both of these scenarios, how would we count up all of the users who are getting benefits from their services? And, of course, what makes Windows different from the operating systems used for either of these?
-
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@dashrender said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
... and assuming you're not lieing about the number of users by making people share accounts or deleting them why couldn't user count be done on a server by server basis?
Lieing is a bad term here, the only place you are asked the number of users is in the count of your CALs. Beyond that, there is no place where one could lie in this context. But moving on, if you don't have AD, where do you envision these accounts living?
Let's take this to a non-Windows, really simple set of examples... all of which could be on Windows if it was affordable...
- MangoLassi
- Google DNS
In both of these scenarios, how would we count up all of the users who are getting benefits from their services? And, of course, what makes Windows different from the operating systems used for either of these?
If Windows Server is hosting a website or public DNS, you don't need CALs for the public user access to that. Publicly accessible services hosted on a Windows Server do not require CALs for public users. Once it's not made publicly accessible, then you need CALs.
But I did understand the point you were trying to make.
-
@tim_g said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
@dashrender said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
... and assuming you're not lieing about the number of users by making people share accounts or deleting them why couldn't user count be done on a server by server basis?
Lieing is a bad term here, the only place you are asked the number of users is in the count of your CALs. Beyond that, there is no place where one could lie in this context. But moving on, if you don't have AD, where do you envision these accounts living?
Let's take this to a non-Windows, really simple set of examples... all of which could be on Windows if it was affordable...
- MangoLassi
- Google DNS
In both of these scenarios, how would we count up all of the users who are getting benefits from their services? And, of course, what makes Windows different from the operating systems used for either of these?
If Windows Server is hosting a website or public DNS, you don't need CALs for the public user access to that. Publicly accessible services hosted on a Windows Server do not require CALs for public users. Once it's not made publicly accessible, then you need CALs.
Actually it's only for public anonymous users that you don't need Named CALs. If you can identify them, even publicly, you need CALs.
