Red Hat overhauls flagship Linux

TalkBack 45 of 78:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Re: my exception...

No matter how you use the server (eMail, print, file, etc), if you make more than one user account on that server (more than one person can log in), then you must pay MS CAL for each user logging in. (Unless you negotiate a blanket agreement with MS.)

For example, if you want to share files in your office, you load 2003 on a server and make accounts for everyone in your office who wishes to log onto that server from their computer. You must pay MS for each person who logs in from their computer and shares files on that server. Now if you just have people log directly onto the server as a stand alone, you don't need to buy CALs. But then it's not really a server, is it?

IIS is a little different. You pay nothing for IIS, but you must pay for each person who logs into the IIS server as an employee or customer. Visitors (such as if you host a bulletin board on your web site) don't have to be licensed. Every site you host must be licensed if the owner of the site requires a user account on the server to upload or download files. If the owner wants several log on accounts for his or her employees, you must pay MS CAL for each one. If you build and maintain the site, and your customer never logs in, you don't need a CAL for that customer. If you run a hosting business, and expect to host hundreds of sites, you can by an appx $25,000.00 license from Microsoft to do that, and you don't have to pay the CALs.

I'm not sure what you meant by '...like a Linux server...'. You make user accounts on Linux servers just like you do on MS servers, you just don't have to pay extra for them. I use my Linux servers for web hosting, file and print sharing, ftp, dns, dhcp, eMail, render farm (game design), video editing, firewall, and to record my favorite TV programs (like TIVO). Oh, and just for kicks, I've got and old 486 that makes my breakfast (starts a toaster and coffee pot - no robotics .

The CALs are the reason I can't understand how TCO with MS could possibly be less than Linux. The cost of the software *is* about the same (if you opt to buy Linux as I do), the salaries of administrators is less than $5K per year difference (and the Linux admins usually have experience in *nix and MS), but having to pay a fee for everyone who logs on to your network adds up FAST.

The only thing I can figure is people are lying to MS and not paying the CALs. But with MS offering a cash bounty for every person who calls them and turns in their employer (1-800 RU-LEGIT) for not having enough CALs, they won't get away with it for long. In any decent size company there's usually one disgruntled employee - rightly or wrongly so.

Hope that helps. If your company is using MS servers, you might want to call MS and find out if you're legit, or if you need to buy more CALs. The licenses can add up, but the penalties if MS catches you short are unbelievable. However, I do expect MS to get rid of the CALs. They already do in certain situations, like when they think a company might switch from their software to Linux. So you might just call them and tell them you're switching to Linux...

- Gypsy

Posted by: TechnoGypsy   Posted on: 10/23/03 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Dell Latitude Notebooks With Embedded Broadband Wireless Networking Provide Sales Force With Mobile Access Dell Edward Don & Company is a world-class distributor of food service ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now