Microsoft Software Asset Management Review SAM
-
@Dashrender said:
OK that was their data center - but they had not a single employee on a windows system?
I know this is becoming more common in silicon valley, but the rest of the country/world?
Why would we. What tools would windows provide to someone who uses no windows only software. It was all Linux VDIs even on the call center floor. (and this is a retail/online and mail order catalog chain.) No windows at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Most companies make bad decisions. Most companies go out of business. Most need help. Nearly all CAN do without Windows, they just choose to take on the Windows overhead. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad ones (like they couldn't be bothered to evaluate and look at the long term costs.) That lots of companies make bad decisions doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to help them make good ones - which might easily mean using Windows, but they should choose it because it is right for them, not because they just did something random and hoped that it would work.
Heck the county paid $50,000 a year to use SirsiDynix for the libraries because someone at the library "liked it" it sucked and client side was based on java. Evergreen is a way better FOSS ILS but they didn't want to learn a new system. http://evergreen-ils.org/
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Also unless the EULAs changed last time I've had SAM come. You do agree to be Audited, but there is nothing about you having to use the paper work they push on you. Most people are scared to push SAM back any as they don't have good paper work in place and think they could fail. We've always kept good internal records, and then given those over to SAM. They ask us to fill out lots of random paper work with the same information in a different format. No. You either take what we give you or we will charge you $150/hr for doing your work. It worked every time for us. Never had an issue with a single review.
Great idea. I'd never considered doing that. It annoyed me that they'd completely changed the spreadsheet since I was last audited 3 years ago. I should have just amended the old spreadsheet and sent them that.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
This is a big reason why, when dealing with brand new companies, I try to make them think VERY carefully about if they need Windows. The penalty is huge.
If what you say is correct (about auditing non Microsoft hardware in the US) then yes, it would be. I was at a seminar last year about a large London council who had moved their entire organisation to Chromebooks. They still had a small number of Windows PCs for various reasons. The idea that a handful of Microsoft licences gives Microsoft the legal power to audit all their Chromebooks (we're talking thousands of machines) is nuts and I'm pretty sure it doesn't happen.
Anyway, I'm not doing it, so we'll see what they say.
-
Done. Just waiting their feedback.
The new spreadsheet they've got me to fill in is a bit weird. The old one seemed more logical - there was a column to fill in how many licences you owned, and a column to fill in how many licences you used. As with a lot of companies, we own slightly more licences than we use. This made sense. But in the new one, you only fill in the number of licences used.
There's also a multiple choice at the end which I really struggled with.
Here's an example. I currently track 100% of licences in a dedicated spreadsheet. Which of the following options do you think I should have selected:
Do you have a repository or software asset register that contains details of all licences you have purchased?
A) There is no dedicated software asset register
B ) Between 70%-90% of licences are tracked in a dedicated spreadsheet or other form of database
C) Between 90%-99% of licences are tracked in a dedicated repository or licence management tool
D) All licences are recorded in a dedicated licence management system, new licences are added immediately. -
I'd have chosen D.
Their definition of a dedicated license management system could be different to yours, the fact is you currently audit and track 100% of software licenses manually, rather than doing it through license management software.
If they query it, show them the spreadsheet.
-
Yeah. Why have they distinguished between "dedicated spreadsheet", "dedicate repository" and "dedicated licence management system"? Technically, a spreadsheet is all three. And why throw-in percentages for B and C? What do you pick if 60% of licences are tracked? And the main question itself says "ALL licences", yet B & C refer to SOME licences. What happens if 100% of licences are recorded in a dedicated licence management system but new licences aren't added immediately (so you can't pick D)?
It's non-nonsensical to me.
-
Because there is now a market for selling "License Management Systems"
Had you picked B/C then they could use that to hit you over the head with threats of Microsoft's legal department, to scare you into buying their compliant dedicated license management system.
They'll want to sell you on the idea that if you buy a license from them, it gets auto added to the database as well, that's why D exists.
-
Well, I guess Microsoft's Volume Licencing Service Center counts as a dedicated licence management system. Ditto O365. And retail licences now have to be allocated to a Microsoft account before activating, so you could argue that that is also a dedicated licence management system?
-
Oh no sir, you need the white glove license management service for...1 million dollars.
