CALs: Silly or Not?
-
@eddiejennings said in CALs: Silly or Not?:
With the CAL model
Windows Server Standard + 10 users: $1,345
Windows Server Standard + 1000 users: $46,885If CALs didn't exist
Windows Server Standard + 10 users: $885
Windows Server Standard + 1000 users: $885Your math is totally wrong. It's like this...
With the CAL model
Windows Server Standard + 10 users: $1,345
Windows Server Standard + 1000 users: $46,885If CALs didn't exist
Windows Server Standard + 10 users: $250,000
Windows Server Standard + 1000 users: $250,000See how much CALs are saving you?
-
As Scott said if you did not have CALs this would cost a lot more
-
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.
-
The idea behind CALs, great. The implementation of it, horrible.
-
@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
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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
-
@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
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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".
-
@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.
-
@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?
