I can't even
-
-
If you don't want your entire set-up peer-reviewed, why include it? Simply ask your question and leave out the irrelevant stuff.
He included all of that stuff on purpose, for the specific purpose of having it reviewed... you can tell.
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
If you don't want your entire set-up peer-reviewed, why include it? Simply ask your question and leave out the irrelevant stuff.
He included all of that stuff on purpose, for the specific purpose of having it reviewed... you can tell.
Oh yeah, for sure. He totally set us all up. He was planning on blowing up over us not condescending and treating him like a child from the very start.
-
-
@tim_g said in I can't even:
If you don't want your entire set-up peer-reviewed, why include it? Simply ask your question and leave out the irrelevant stuff.
He included all of that stuff on purpose, for the specific purpose of having it reviewed... you can tell.
Yeah, while I'm sure that answer technically comes under some clause of the Comunity guidelines, the original question would've needed to be correct. By including all that extra detail it's assumed the OP is also asking for comments/questions on the entire post.
-
Remember that I said that MS MultiPoint Server questions were coming? LOL
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2096476-still-onb-windows-multipoint-server-2016
-
Yeah well... what can ya do.
I suppose if you let more people keep doing what they are doing, more things will break more frequently, therefore keeping MSPs in business such as NTG and B&A ^_^
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
Remember that I said that MS MultiPoint Server questions were coming? LOL
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2096476-still-onb-windows-multipoint-server-2016
that's not really a new question - it's just a re-asking of his old one, this time more appropriately. Granted he still lead off with a tech that he probably shouldn't be using.
-
This guy is really angry about how much Windows costs, thinks it is insane, but gets upset if you even ask why he didn't consider a free alternative. Clearly the cost can't be insane if he sees that level of value in it, the two things can't overlap.
https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/2096480-server-2016-licensing-again
-
@scottalanmiller Personally, I think CALs are silly, but it's model Microsoft chose for licensing. Who are any of us to complain?
-
@eddiejennings said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller Personally, I think CALs are silly, but it's model Microsoft chose for licensing. Who are any of us to complain?
How come you think that they are silly? I actually have a pending video made about how great they are. What's the alternative?
-
@scottalanmiller Not have them. You buy a server for your network and pay for a license of Windows Server. Great! Now your users and devices can connect to it. Rather than buy a server for your network, pay for a license for Windows Server, and pay for a license for each entity that wants to connect to it.
-
Sorry, I answered the "what's the alternative?" question. Why are they silly? I'm of a mind when you buy a server license, that's it. Your users can access the server. Rather than adding to the cost and potential complexity of now paying for each entity to have the right to access the server you just licensed. There's nothing wrong with the choice to use that licensing model. I simply don't prefer it.
-
@eddiejennings said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller Not have them. You buy a server for your network and pay for a license of Windows Server. Great! Now your users and devices can connect to it. Rather than buy a server for your network, pay for a license for Windows Server, and pay for a license for each entity that wants to connect to it.
But that would be insanely expensive for small companies. the company with 10 users would have to pay the same as the one with 1,000 users. SMBs couldn't afford paying enterprise prices.
-
CALs are really, really easy - just count your users. Hard to get simpler. And they keep the price down.
CALs are easy and reduce the cost.
What's not to like?
-
@scottalanmiller said in I can't even:
CALs are really, really easy - just count your users. Hard to get simpler. And they keep the price down.
CALs are easy and reduce the cost.
What's not to like?
lol - what's not to like is the cost at all.
-
I'll start another thread, so this doesn't turn into the Hyper-V-like thread.
-
-
@scottalanmiller oh boy... wow. just wow.
-
@bnrstnr said in I can't even:
@scottalanmiller oh boy... wow. just wow.
Yeah.... I want X... but really want Y!
Just use Y.
But I want X!!
