Actually I think I would be instructive for Pog to take a look at more than that:

Respect the use of other operating systems. While Linux is a wonderful platform, it does not meet everyone’s needs.

Refer to another product by its proper name. There’s nothing to be gained by attempting to ridicule a company or its products by using “creative spelling”. If we expect respect for Linux, we must respect other products.

Give credit where credit is due. Linux is just the kernel. Without the efforts of people involved with the GNU project, MIT, Berkeley and others too numerous to mention, the Linux kernel would not be very useful to most people.

Don’t insist that Linux is the only answer for a particular application. Just as the Linux community cherishes the freedom that Linux provides them, Linux only solutions would deprive others of their freedom.

There will be cases where Linux is not the answer. Be the first to recognize this and offer another solution.

How will LAMP help if their needs are Computer Aided Design? Can LAMP help a compnay pay invoices? What use is a web-server and database for video editing?

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Advocacy-6.html

Take note of the last item in the list.

In the 90s. The instigator of the “evangelist” campaign James Plamondon has left MS for at least 10 years since.

You know IBM used to sell Hollerith machines to the Nazis? Yeah, your argument is about as sound as that Linux promotes fascism to children.

How about this – every time you cite something from Groklaw, I put a link here to IBM and the Holocaust? For someone disinclined to engage in a level-headed argument, I think this is the only right remedy.

see PCWorld “Schools Cry Bully Over Microsoft Licensing Fees”

More ancient news.

The company quickly backed down on its strict deadlines, and executives now say the whole thing was a misunderstanding.

Nevertheless, the experience has prompted many school administrators to seriously consider switching from Microsoft’s operating systems and office applications to free or low-cost alternatives such as Linux and Sun’s Star Office.

I am sure that most definitely, 100-percent happened. Sun Microsystem is now the most popular thing in Washington and Oregon and schools around the world are ditching Windows left, right and center for this “Linux” thing. You sure are a sucker for cooked-up news stories, aren’t you?

“volume licensing” and higher total bills for licensing.

With an understanding of Windows licensing at about the same level as Oiaohm, you sure have a lot to say about the subject matter, don’t you? Why not write some 1000-word rambling essay about “volume licensing” like Oiaohm does about CALs so I can have something to laugh at?

I agree. They are far better off to use FREE SOFTWARE such as LAMP.

Sure, I have spies in M$’s HQ reporting to me daily…

Here’s the best I can do:

• “Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy’s, is a key evangelism function during the Slog. “Independent” analyst’s report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). “Independent” consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). “Independent” academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). “Independent” courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.” – That’s M$’s training in technique. It does not say “every legal” but “every possible”. See the difference? see GROKLAW. That’s from legal discovery in US DOJ v M$.
• “Educators in both states received letters from the company in March giving them 60 days to perform extensive audits in search of unlicensed software, or risk facing potentially costly penalties. The letter came with a marketing brochure touting the company’s latest volume-licensing agreements.

  The letter’s tone, which some recipients felt was threatening, elicited a strong response from school administrators. They complained loudly, and some even threatened to strip their schools’ PCs of Microsoft products. The company quickly backed down on its strict deadlines, and executives now say the whole thing was a misunderstanding.” see PCWorld “Schools Cry Bully Over Microsoft Licensing Fees” – M$ was using an audit to encourage schools to switch to “volume licensing” and higher total bills for licensing.

Hang on – what exactly is the relevance of all this?

It’s not MS’s problem that RP inherit a package of Server 2003 with 5 CALs from some ex-employee at a school with all the paperwork missing. This is exactly, as I said, stretching it. (Read also my last gobbled-up post if ever shows up.)

Or, more precisely, who uses Windows Server internally for a school of 5 people? Is there even a school of 5 people (except in the most backwards of all places)?

The bottom line is – all you need to know about CALs is in the Volume licensing agreement, or, failing that, go through the paperwork that comes with your Windows Server package or just look things up on the Internet.

There is no excuse.

Where is the direct verifiable evidence that the behavior was deliberate, as opposed to your opinion?

As I said facts not in evidence…

If you’re going to blather on and on about the CAL EULA, I’d appreciate it if you’d provide either quotes of the relevant portions of that license, or links to the same, instead of a wall of text. While you’re Googling, look up “Per-seat licensing” too.

@Pogson

“Everything M$ has ever done has been deliberately aimed at increasing the number of licences sold in every possible way, legal or not.”

Considering that MS don’t mind a jot that people buying licenses base their purchase on the least number required, I’d say this was incorrect.

“Nonsense. I have worked in several schools with a server, CALs and no volume licensing agreement.”

Did you miss the bit in Brillo’s post about “not done right to begin with”? Although an organisation can survive on retail/OEM servers and CALs, it’s a false economy in the long run.

Nonsense. I have worked in several schools with a server, CALs and no volume licensing agreement. e.g.

“Nonsense” is the word I am looking for when I see the above statement. Are you telling me that you run a school with a total of 5 people? Again, you know and I know something just wasn’t done right to begin with, but you just can’t help but push the same old button, can you?

Oh, and did you look through the content the package when you bought it, assuming that you actually handled the purchase instead of, say, you just somehow got the thing from some guy who had left years before?

This is getting really old, don’t you think?

@Oiaohm

Funny enough all the websites you are point to don’t mean anything in court of law because that was not the contract you agreed to.

You know what means something in a court of law? Deceptive marketing. Unless you have something concrete (as opposed to your usual Russian space probe fantasies) to prove your case, I’ll just take that as you trying to make up stories to save face.

The usual Oiaohm fluff, in other words.

Last bit is partly not true. Particular cases. Like a 2000 and 2003 and 2008 in a physical network not a virtual one the CAL 2008 include clauses that 2003 and 2000 can use that cal without having there own.

You seem confused, so let me explain that to you, oiaohm. A CAL has nothing to do with how the server is run. This means as long as your server is accessible to users, you need the right CALs. Whatever you need for licensing the copies of the Server products is a story aside. Period.

Brillo your answer about stock pile of cals is invalid what you buy if you need to aquire a windows 2000 or 2003 cal today its a 2008 Cal.

No. The CALs for Server 2003 and Server 2008 are not interchangeable. This is stated clearly in your own link. For someone who claims to have managed Windows machines and does not know something this basic, that’s just pathetic.

Windows Server CAL includes causes covering Domains.

Which are well explained in those links to MS official sites (as oposed to imaginary clauses in Oiaohm’s head). If you have trouble with that, go file a class-action suit – I dare you.

For those who say workgroups domains and forest don’t count. Where you place you CAL’s in your network is critical for how many your require.

Irrelevant. It’s not MS problem that you mess up your license server settings. The basic rule (one CAL per user or device) still stands no matter how you spin it.

But there is also the problem that if you place device cals in forest and you lose connection to forest you have also lost CALs.

Even more irrelevant. If you lose an entire forest, the last thing you want to worry about is the CALs.

As tangential as it is, here are the instructions on disaster recovery for forests.

So you have users with many user Cals assigned to them you also end up with devices with many device cals assigned to them.

A mixture of user and device CALs is exactly what MS recommend against (see the first link in my last post). If you somehow end up with it, you have already done something wrong.

Brillo notice you said service set not network

Because networks – the very things that you seem to be obsessed with – are irrelevant for CALs.

Again, get it or don’t.