ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    CALs: Silly or Not?

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    windows serverlicensingcalclient access license
    72 Posts 11 Posters 5.6k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller @EddieJennings
      last edited by

      @eddiejennings said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

      I agree "potential complexity" shouldn't even be a thing, but just a look at SW and you'll see that it is. What's not to like? Paying an additional license fee per user in addition the fee for just licensing the server software.

      You can't say it is additional. You aren't paying for the use of the server until you pay for the CALs. If you wanted server licensing with no CALs, you'd have to move to "Core Licensing" and the cost would be scores or hundreds of times higher.

      CALs keep the cost down, there is no "additional."

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller @EddieJennings
        last edited by

        @eddiejennings said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

        With the CAL model
        Windows Server Standard + 10 users: $1,345
        Windows Server Standard + 1000 users: $46,885

        If CALs didn't exist
        Windows Server Standard + 10 users: $885
        Windows Server Standard + 1000 users: $885

        Your math is totally wrong. It's like this...

        With the CAL model
        Windows Server Standard + 10 users: $1,345
        Windows Server Standard + 1000 users: $46,885

        If CALs didn't exist
        Windows Server Standard + 10 users: $250,000
        Windows Server Standard + 1000 users: $250,000

        See how much CALs are saving you?

        EddieJenningsE 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • JaredBuschJ
          JaredBusch
          last edited by

          As Scott said if you did not have CALs this would cost a lot more

          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller
            last edited by

            The key piece here is that you are comparing the cost of the CAL model with the cost of something that doesn't exist. The "non-CAL" price you show isn't the non-CAL price at all, it's just one part of the CAL price. So not at all how you present it.

            What you never show (and MS doesn't tell us) is what the cost of an "Unlimited CAL" license would be for Windows Server. Even they likely don't know, as no one has ever figured it out. CALs "limit" the cost and you work your way back up towards the max as you add more. CALs don't add on cost, they take it away.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • travisdh1T
              travisdh1
              last edited by

              The idea behind CALs, great. The implementation of it, horrible.

              JaredBuschJ scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote -1
              • JaredBuschJ
                JaredBusch @travisdh1
                last edited by JaredBusch

                @travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                The idea behind CALs, great. The implementation of it, horrible.

                I don’t know what you’re talking about CALs are easy and simple you count you pay you’re done

                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @travisdh1
                  last edited by

                  @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?

                  travisdh1T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • scottalanmillerS
                    scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                    last edited by

                    @jaredbusch said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                    @travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                    The idea behind CALs, great. The implementation of it, horrible.

                    I don’t know what you’re talking about cows are easy and simple you count you pay you’re done

                    Oh Siri, you so funny.

                    JaredBuschJ 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • EddieJenningsE
                      EddieJennings @scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      @scottalanmiller Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. Without the CAL model, there would be the core model, which is orders of magnitude more expensive.

                      scottalanmillerS dafyreD 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • JaredBuschJ
                        JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @scottalanmiller said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                        @jaredbusch said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                        @travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                        The idea behind CALs, great. The implementation of it, horrible.

                        I don’t know what you’re talking about cows are easy and simple you count you pay you’re done

                        Oh Siri, you so funny.

                        That too

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller @EddieJennings
                          last edited by

                          @eddiejennings said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                          @scottalanmiller Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. Without the CAL model, there would be the core model, which is orders of magnitude more expensive.

                          Exactly. Unless of course you had a million users like Walmart, then you are the big winner and for you, it would be break even. Everyone smaller would suffer 🙂

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • EddieJenningsE
                            EddieJennings
                            last edited by

                            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. 🙂

                            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • dafyreD
                              dafyre @EddieJennings
                              last edited by dafyre

                              @eddiejennings said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                              @scottalanmiller Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. Without the CAL model, there would be the core model, which is orders of magnitude more expensive.

                              I somewhat agree. However, Microsoft (in this case) could not price their stuff so exorbitantly.

                              Their products would have to be priced at what the market could bear.

                              scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • travisdh1T
                                travisdh1 @scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                @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.

                                scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • scottalanmillerS
                                  scottalanmiller @EddieJennings
                                  last edited by

                                  @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.

                                  EddieJenningsE 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                  • scottalanmillerS
                                    scottalanmiller @travisdh1
                                    last edited by

                                    @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.

                                    travisdh1T 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • scottalanmillerS
                                      scottalanmiller @travisdh1
                                      last edited by

                                      @travisdh1 said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                                      I know @scottalanmiller, @JaredBusch, and myself will never agree on this one.

                                      No, but Jared and I can prove that what you want isn't possible. So it's better than agreeing - it's a definitive solution.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • scottalanmillerS
                                        scottalanmiller @dafyre
                                        last edited by

                                        @dafyre said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                                        @eddiejennings said in CALs: Silly or Not?:

                                        @scottalanmiller Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. Without the CAL model, there would be the core model, which is orders of magnitude more expensive.

                                        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".

                                        S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • travisdh1T
                                          travisdh1 @scottalanmiller
                                          last edited by

                                          @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.

                                          scottalanmillerS coliverC 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • EddieJenningsE
                                            EddieJennings @scottalanmiller
                                            last edited by

                                            @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.

                                            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 1 / 4
                                            • First post
                                              Last post