M$ Promotes GNU/Linux By Shipping Cripple-ware For Servers

“Windows Server 2012 Foundation will only be available to OEMs and will come with a 15 user limit and no virtualisation rights.”

Isnt’t that a laugh? M$’s charges more money in relation to how much of your own IT you can use? Do we have parking meters in our garages? Do we have coin-slots on our refrigerators? Do we pay to use our tools? Those are silly concepts. So is that other OS in IT.

I recommend people use Debian GNU/Linux on clients and servers. It works for you and is not cripple-ware. You get the full power of your hardware for the cost of installation, ~$0, and there’s no per-seat/per-server/per-connection/per-CPU charge. None. It’s the right way to do IT.

see Microsoft details Windows Server 2012 pricing – The Inquirer.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to M$ Promotes GNU/Linux By Shipping Cripple-ware For Servers

  1. oiaohm says:

    Phenom other than the fact $1000 dollars worth of hardware can support 25 users no problems. Even out to 50 to 60 users. That is with ECC ram and dual power-supplies and duel UPS. The base server box is 500-700 dollars. UPS are 100 dollars each. I threw in extra 100 for extras.

    “A good hardware to utilize it all would cost at two-three times more at least.”

    essentials maxed it contains 25 cals problem is the hardware to max that out is sub 1000. Price 425 when you add on the number of cals to take it to the hardware limits you are talking spending more than entry than what its worth.

    Not true at all its 1 to 1 or worse. The cal limit is what brings you undone. The system ends up idling with windows because you cannot connect enough users to use it. Modern hardware is very able body stuff in the sub 1000 dollar range.

    Quad core cpus are more than able to handle 2 virtual instances. Basically everything provided in box by windows 2012 startand can be fully exploited by current day entry level hardware.

    Standard supports duel cpu’s just like Datacenter out box. But you don’t have the virtual instances to really exploit the hardware you would place Datacenter on.

    To get to the point where entry level hardware will not support everything in box in Windows 2012 server versions you have to go up to Windows 2012 Datacenter. That is a 4,809 dollar spend to support two physical core machines. Again this is about a 1 to 1 spend again to get something that will drive that well. Reason again is limited cals out box.

    At 4,809 spend you can buy a Tyan duel cpu motherboard case it fill with full ram ecc and fit two very decent spec Xeon chips in a decent case.

    So yes even Datacenter is 1 to 1 for what is provided. Worst part is I can build using not high name brand(intel boards) a Quad chip Xeon for 4,809 with dual powersupply and ups. Yes there is not enough license in the Datacenter box to run on that. Mind you most of the cost in hardware is the 4 xeon chips. 600 dollars each. Motherboard is only 300 dollars. 2400 in cpu + 300 in motheroboard + 100 in case + 100 in power supplies + 200 in ups. 3100 before ram and drives. You have 1700 left for ram and drives. Then you wake up you have to buy 2 datacenter licenses to run this thing and that is without extra cals. So fully filled with ECC ram decent lot of hard-drives and are still way under the license cost MS wants. You can afford to throw in a few SSD drives or ram drives. I could even go a name brand board.

    Phenom so its basically 1 to 1 costing. For every 1 dollar you spend on hardware you give 1 dollar to Microsoft in base licensing. This is why Linux is popular high end because you can basically cut cost in half. Then when you addon cals it gets really bad. It can work out that for each 1 dollar in hardware you give Microsoft 4 dollars.

    A little screwed up right. It does not get better.

    They have got rid of enterprise versions. They have added a starter version.

    The big good thing is MS for standard has killed of the stupid per server licensing and moved to per cpu licensing like everyone else.

    If you had read the licensing guide Ms knows that Standard is too small so cover running multi instances of Standard on the one box.

    So if you have two copies of windows standard you can run 4 virtual instances on a box not 2 and you can use 4 physical cpus.

    Essentials and foundation are still the stupid per sever license. Per cpu number is a active license meaning a machine dies you can move that license to a new machine no problems.

    Standard up now is like redhat and Oracle licensing bar the huge cal requirement.

    Results could be less server income for Microsoft since people should not need to buy as many licenses when servers die.

    Cost of Microsoft licensing is still insane compare to the price of hardware its running on.

  2. Phenom says:

    Setting aside the fact that you obviously misunderstand the limits of the Foundation version, I find it very sad that you rely on the competition to make a wrong marketing step to make your favourite product look good. In your logic, Linux stands no chance against Windows 2012 Standard edition.

    Btw, less than $1000 for a server OS with two free licenses for VM installations is close to nothing. A good hardware to utilize it all would cost at two-three times more at least. That is damn cheap.

  3. Clarence Moon says:

    Those are silly concepts.

    Your characterization of the situation does result in absurd results, Mr. Pogson, but it is not very clear that your characterizations are in any way relevant to the market.

    That product meets a market need and results in a satisfied customer and a corporate profit for MSFT. What more could you ask of such an initiative? You live in a dream world where you expect to receive everything you need in terms of software in exchange for your participation of criticizing its performance. That is the silliest concept of all.

Leave a Reply