Saving €3,000 per user per year on licenses with FLOSS

A small city in Hungary is shifting most of its clients and servers to GNU/Linux and saving a bundle. They still need a few copies of that other OS because people keep sending them old file formats.

“The main problem we have is with the documents we receive from the national government, companies and other institutions. They send us Microsoft Word and Excel files containing special macros, causing compatibility problems with our open source office software. So in one to two per cent of cases we have to open the documents using a Microsoft Office program.”

see Hungarian city of Miskolc: "Saving €3,000 per user per year on licenses" | Joinup.

Clearly, FLOSS and GNU/Linux are working for them. I recommend you try it as well. see http://www.debian.org/

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.

56 Responses to Saving €3,000 per user per year on licenses with FLOSS

  1. oldman says:

    “Take note of the last item in the list.”

    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.

  2. Ted says:

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

    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.

  3. Brillo says:

    That’s M$’s training in technique.

    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.

    I am sure that didn’t happen. The schools got software taken away from them and children were left without education. However…

    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?

  4. Ted wrote, “Although an organisation can survive on retail/OEM servers and CALs, it’s a false economy in the long run.”

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

  5. oldman wrote, “Where is the direct verifiable evidence that the behavior was deliberate, as opposed to your opinion?”

    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.

  6. Brillo says:

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

    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.

  7. Brillo says:

    It seems my post has been junked by the spam filter.

  8. oldman says:

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

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

    As I said facts not in evidence…

  9. Ted says:

    @Oiaohm.

    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.

  10. Brillo says:

    @RP

    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.

  11. Brillo wrote, “You get your CALs through Volume Licensing.”

    Nonsense. I have worked in several schools with a server, CALs and no volume licensing agreement. e.g. http://ncix.com/products/?sku=28920

  12. oiaohm says:

    Brillo there is a CAL EULA. Volume Licensing Agreement has a End User License Agreements people don’t read. Yes its extra to the OS EULA. That is on the site where you get your keys, download of images and so on. You agree to it to use Volume Licenes Agreements. Yes there is the option to download the legal agreement from that site. Most people don’t so they just read the Microsoft abridged that really don’t tell them how the legal is working and why it works.

    Each Cals for each version of a product have different terms that must be followed exactly.

    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. Yes the Legal Contract of the CAL’s is what you need not those crapping websites. Those explain how the virtulisation reduction in license is legally done. Yes assigning you CAL keys in correct places in the OS’s is important to be legal as per the contract agreement.

    So they follow the MS website and when they get audited they get done. The web sites you are referring me to is not the legal agreement between company and Microsoft.

    Brillo by the way for 2008 plus in terms is named user. When you look up the define of that its login accounts in the same document. So not users. You create a named user every time you create an account that can be logged into.

    Yes this has teeth. 3 domains person has 3 logins 1 on each domain they require a CAL for each login when using User Cals 2008 or latter because of Named Users each account that can login are different named users even that they are the same physical human so its not same user define any more. 2003 and before it was just Users so that case was 1 cal. It also true that a human with 2 login accounts on a domain uses 2 User Cals with 2008 and latter.

    That named user one is a common error as well.

    Brillo basically 2008 and latter its named users not users. Major different meaning. Named users does mean keep track of number of accounts because that is how you end up in breach of named users.

    Brillo Basically I am quote how the legal documents around CAL work. Not presumed stuff from Microsoft attempt to write those documents in simple english. They have skipped over how CAL requirement reduction happens in Virtualisation. They also skip over how named users link to domain server created accounts so 2 ADS Domains with 100 accounts on each with 100 physically humans in the company. Require 200 user CAL all due to Named Users in 2008 agreement. Yet those two domains inside hyper-V only requires 100 CAL if they are the same OS. Why because the 100 named users are really only connect to the Hyper-V host then the Hyper-V host connects to the Domain so at the Hyper-V host there is only 100 named users that they split after that does not matter. Ie at the domain of the hyper-v host there is 100 named users. So the machines inside virtualistation on hyper-v are not getting any cals.

    Why because the user is not physically connecting to the Server OS holding the Domain.

    It all comes down to connections. Direct connections and indirect connections. Indirection connections reduce to 1 as long as where the Indirect is coming from is licensed for that Number of Users/Devices.

    There are a lot of ways to get yourself into hot water with MS CAL’s. Mostly because you followed the MS simple descriptions not the Licenses themselves.

    Brillo
    “CAL is tied to a specific service set provided by a specific version of a product”
    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. But as soon as you place inside virtualisation those clauses are voided. And the funny part here Brillo is that the 300 for the 100 user example in hyper-v you require to cover 2000 2003 and 2008 can be 300 Windows Server 2008 CAL since 2008 CAL can be used in place of 2000 and 2003 cals just on virtualisation you cannot reuse the ones ready assigned. In virtualistaion each cal can only be for 1 OS type at a time. In a Physical network they can be for many as long as the OS is lower.

    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.

    The correct answer is not “specific version of a product” it is “specific versions of a product” skipping a single letter makes a big difference.

    Windows Server CAL includes causes covering Domains.

    The site I pointed to points out one of the clear difference in virtualisation.

    Brillo I can give example after example where black and white does not happen in CAL’s where a User can presume they have enough but due to change in configuration you don’t have enough.

    vmware hypervisor, xen and kvm people can find themselves in CAL trouble really quickly. Reality is named user cals only multipy of you have a hosting Windows. None of those are a hosting Windows by windows to use the CAL multiplier effect.

    Some cases you should only acquire device cals.

    When you are talking user based cals your ADS in Windows is your list of created Named users.

    Depending on the Device CAL agreement some are Domain locked some are not. Microsoft has changed this over the years backwards and forwards many times.

    Yes different domain is a different named user so you need tons more named users in you go the named user path. The device path also suxs and there are cases where that multiplies as well.

    Brillo heck I could equally point you to a vmware site saying you don’t need cals for websites when running Windows server on vmware. Its not going to hold up in a court of law because its not the license agreement you agreed to with Microsoft.

    Brillo when you stop looking at the abridge documents and start reading the Microsoft license agreements that companies have agreed to you will find that everything I am saying is the reality.

    Configuration Domains and everything else is important.

    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/eu/winserverTS/thread/ef56dfd4-4da7-45c9-a0a1-05ab8f320797

    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.

    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. Yes computers moving between domains end up eating up more CALs device cals as well.

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

    The magic idea that 1 device 1 cal is not real. Same with 1 user 1 cal is also not real. Bigger more complex installations its not true.

    Brillo notice you said service set not network.

  13. Brillo says:

    Lots of people and organizations have no such agreement.

    Did the Oiaohm thing get rubbed on you or something?

    You get your CALs through Volume Licensing. An agreement is issued based on the licensing program you have entered. The whole process is even explained in MS official site complete with a cost calculator, and you certainly don’t need to be a published scientist to work through it.

    BTW, don’t bother telling me stories about how you inherited something or another with no proper licenses in a school. Both you and I know well the problem was there becasuse things were not done right to begin with and any discussion about “salesmen” is just stretching it. If you want someone to listen to such arm-wavy diatribes, go find your old pal Oiaohm.

  14. oldman wrote, “Facts not in evidence….”.

    I base my statement on history. Everything M$ has ever done has been deliberately aimed at increasing the number of licences sold in every possible way, legal or not. The only accidental actions of M$ are vulnerabilities in the code, possibly…

  15. oldman says:

    “The stuff on M$’s site is voluminous and vague, deliberately so, to encourage contact with salesmen.”

    Facts not in evidence….

  16. Brillo wrote, “Everything you need to know about CALs is stated in the Volume Licensing Agreement.”

    Lots of people and organizations have no such agreement. The stuff on M$’s site is voluminous and vague, deliberately so, to encourage contact with salesmen.

  17. Brillo says:

    The problem is it not correct. Read the CAL EULA for user and device. The CAL EULA does not extend to forests.

    More balony. You seem to like making things up as you go along, don’t you?

    There is no such thing as a CAL “EULA”. Everything you need to know about CALs is stated in the Volume Licensing Agreement.

    Also, there is no such thing as an “AD” CAL, i.e whether you have a forest or just a domain is irrelevant to the amount of Windows Server CALs you need to get. This is stated quite clearly and pictographically in MS official site.

    http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/client-access-license.aspx

    For server installs, you follow the guidelines here to obtain appropriate licenses. For client access, you get a CAL for either each user or each device. Even a dime-store IT staffer could work his way through stuff this trivial.

    So much for being a self-proclaimed “VAR”, Oiaohm.

    Due to Hyper-V the network connection goes to the host OS then passed on.

    Again, getting a CAL for accessing Server 2008 on virtual machines is the same as getting a CAL for accessing Server 2008 on physical machines. The only difference is in the way licensing is done for the server instances themselves, which have nothing to do with CAL. See link above.

    This is why you are getting it wrong. The case where the hosting OS are not the same domain your price goes up instantly.

    No. As anyone with actual experience managing Windows machines for an organization would know, there is no such thing as an AD CAL, only Windows Server CAL (which allows basic Server access including AD, authentication service). See Tab #3 in my first link.

    The 2008 hosting OS does not require any Cals as long as its just Hosting Hyper-V.

    That’s because the CALs are issued based on what services the users are allowed to access. Again, you don’t seem to quite notice how the licening system works even though you repeatedly claim to have experience managing “forests”.

    “http://blogs.technet.com/b/nking/archive/2009/01/22/licensing-changes-for-cals-and-hyper-v.aspx

    LOL. Different CALs are required for Server 2003 and Server 2008 because a CAL is usually tied to a specific version of Windows server. The basic rule (one CAL for each user/device) still applies, however.

    Like I can setup your layout that it requires only 100 Cal or if I don’t understand CAL licensing I could screw up and configure it in away that required 1200+ Cals.

    Again, the type of CALs required is based on what the users needs to access. A Core CAL suite usually covers everything for each user for access a version of Windows Server and any orgainzation running a mixture of Server 2003 and Server 2008 would have a healthy supply of CALs for Server 2003 to begin with anyway. There is no way you could mess up something like that unless you were a complete imbecile.

    Clarence Moon I deal with ADS forests is a fact

    No, you clearly don’t, and that’s an empricial fact.

    Like 2008 hyper-v placed on every machine without domain configuration then placing all domain controllers and file servers as guest.

    Again, read Tab #3 in my first link. Your assertions on CALs and Windows Server licensing in general are about as farcical as your tall tale about the Russians sending space probes to collect samples from the moon.

    http://redmondmag.com/articles/2011/02/01/make-sure-youre-compliant.aspx

    Nothing in that link tells you about CALs. In fact, nothing in that link is relevant to CALs. Sure, you are only allowed to run the virtualized instances in the physical machine you have licensed Windows Server for (see my second link), but that hardly has anything to do with the matter being discussed here.

    Yes teeth.

    Yes purple monkey dishwasher.

    I have also presumed that 100 users is 100 login accounts since that is how 2008 User cals work Not 100 human users

    You clearly have no idea how CALs work, do you? Let me repeat this for you again: a CAL is tied to a specific service set provided by a specific version of a product, and for each user or device accessing the service set, you need one CAL or CAL suite. That’s all.

    Get it or don’t.

  18. oiaohm says:

    Ted “Domains, forests, sites, servers – IRRELEVANT.

    ONE CAL PER DEVICE OR USER.”

    The problem is it not correct. Read the CAL EULA for user and device. The CAL EULA does not extend to forests.

    The correct answer is (ONE CAL PER DEVICE OR USER) PER ADS DOMAIN(or lack of). And its more complex than that when you throw in Virtualisation effects. Particularly the routing by hosting OS effect.

    The common incorrect answer (ONE CAL PER DEVICE OR USER) PER NETWORK.

    Problem is people swap the word DOMAIN for Network. Because lots of networks only have 1 Domain. Network can contain multi domains.

    Yes it changes based on virtualisation solution.

    Due to Hyper-V the network connection goes to the host OS then passed on. Passed on to the virtual is only a connection to the virtual by 1 device the hosting OS if the hosting OS has Cals(this will become clear latter). So the virtual does not need cals since it contains 1-5 device/user cals at min out box for the Virtual OS is has more than enough Cals covering it as long as it traffic comes care of host.

    Now if all 4 of those server have the same domain at hosting OS and its hyper-v is 100 Cals. Now if they have different domains on the hosting OS. It is now 400 Cals.

    Next evil. Its vmware/xen/kvm virtualisation with a real physical nic(for performance reasons) for each being passed to each virtual machine each virtual instance that is a different domain needs there own Cals. So for this case 1200 Cals is required since no Cal merging is going on.

    Servers placed at other physical locations where you don’t want the same domain at base also end up needing there own CALs unless you are sneaky and exploit the fact 2008 can be installed as a hosting OS.

    This could all be the same hardware. Now if those 4 servers at at 4 different physical locations and the CALs were acquired site locked(this is slightly cheaper on one hand but in this case its a mistake) That 100 cal using the same domain at hosting OS level now becomes 400 cal required because you acquired site locked cals. Yes everything you saved on the site locking discount you would have lost as soon as you crossed 120 Cals. So is 280 CAL cost in the red due to someone ordering the wrong type.

    So somewhere between 100-1200 Cals for organisational wide Cal usage depending on virtualisation configuration.

    Site cals worst of worst I would have todo the maths. It would have been simpler if all 12 individual domains were being replicated by each box for maths when you add site locked would be a simple times by 4. This case is not a simple times by 4.

    Ted
    “four physical servers, each being a DC holding a forest tree root”
    This is why you are getting it wrong. The case where the hosting OS are not the same domain your price goes up instantly.

    Just to make thing even more nuts.
    “http://blogs.technet.com/b/nking/archive/2009/01/22/licensing-changes-for-cals-and-hyper-v.aspx”

    The 2008 hosting OS does not require any Cals as long as its just Hosting Hyper-V. Problem every OS inside now requires CAL’s to meet their required needs since now its not classed as routing down to 1 device/user CAL required. So if you have many 2008 servers inside running domains you will be putting cals on the hosting OS with Hyper-V. Yes lets say no root domain in your example on the Hosting OS. And you don’t put cals on the Hyper-V host 1200 Cals is required. Why would you do this. The means to transfer those instances between machines without worrying about where you send it having enough Cals. But is a really steep cost. Most will just put the CALs on the hosting OS to be able to merge feature.

    Also note scenario 3. If you have 2000, 2003 and 2008 on the same hyper-v server. You cannot use 2008 Cals for 2003 or 2000 same with 2003 for 2000 instances. Same base domian contained on all servers you required 300 Cal because you are running 2008, 2003 and 2000 on the server. Yes 100 CAL 2008 100 CAL 2003 and 100 CAL 2000. Now if the 2008 servers are now different base domains times by 4. No domain is still a domain of nothing. So 4 2008 just doing hosting they are all the same domain. Yes there are loop holes. You can design your network to exploit these loopholes. So everything in a 2008 Hyper-V with no ADS can be a good thing for Cal sharing.

    Like I can setup your layout that it requires only 100 Cal or if I don’t understand CAL licensing I could screw up and configure it in away that required 1200+ Cals. Same hardware. This is why I hate Microsoft. Configuration is directly linked to cost.

    They must be exactly version matched Cals in virtualisation. This is why I did not balk at Robert Pogson 2000 and 2003 require different cals when hosting virtual. It true has soon as you Hyper-V 2008 even if they are in the same domain. Yes there is the case where you have 3 physical servers 1 2008 1 2003 and 1000 same domain require 100 CAL 2008 that you merge them into a hyper-v server you now require 300 CAL 100 of each type to run that domain.

    CAL’s are nicely inconstant. One change and you can find yourself short.

    Ted
    “Domains, forests, sites, servers – IRRELEVANT.”
    Unfortunately down right reverent all of them and you are missing a few. Like virtualisation configuration.

    You have to work out where you are placing the cals based on productivity needs.

    As you see 100-1200 cals is one hell of a lot of variation in cost all directly linked to how its configured.

    Clarence Moon I deal with ADS forests is a fact and virtualisation and other means to reduce Cal usage.

    It is not straight forwards doing the maths working out how much you owe Microsoft for a solution. Changing one thing can change the cost wildly.

    Like 2008 hyper-v placed on every machine without domain configuration then placing all domain controllers and file servers as guest. Hurts performance yes but brings your cal cost to your company way down. Then you have the cost on the other-side of the coin having to use more expensive versions of Windows to be able to virtualise enough instances.
    http://redmondmag.com/articles/2011/02/01/make-sure-youre-compliant.aspx

    Yes teeth.

    I have also presumed that 100 users is 100 login accounts since that is how 2008 User cals work Not 100 human users.

    Yes people think 100 CAL per network cover everything. They miss how people like me pull that off. Its like those hyper-v instances all identically configured to multiply the CALs. If we don’t do that the CAL bill will scary bad.

    This is why I was saying that saving is possible. But its a sign that the person who had setup the network screwed up somewhere.

    So yes multi thousand per user is possible. Its a sign of a error. Very common error.

  19. Clarence Moon says:

    I deal with ADS forests

    Baloney, Mr. O, it is clear that you deal in nothing but fantasies in your own head. And that needs to be examined when it produces things like memories of Russians landing automated probes on the moon and returning to earth with samples taken. Or the idea that “everyone has satellites around the moon”.

    You need to find a new group to try to fool, Mr. O., you are busted here.

  20. Ted wrote, “How many CALs do they need?”

    That’s a complex question wasting the time of users of that other OS, another way M$ enslaves people. The usual answer will be whatever M$ wants, M$ gets. They even have an application for that. I recommend Debian GNU/Linux, an OS that works for you instead of making work for you.

  21. Ted says:

    “I deal with ADS forests.”

    What makes you think that we do not?

    “That you and another domain those cals are not usable even if its the same machine client machine and even the same server running virtual instances of windows server. This becomes particular important in cases of Windows 7 machines in a ADS forest able to log into two sections of the Forest. So a laptop moving between sites in fact can require multi cal. Same with devices moving between sites.”

    Domains, forests, sites, servers – IRRELEVANT.

    ONE CAL PER DEVICE OR USER.

    What’s your answer to my question above?

    Hypothetical situation 2; An organisation still has 100 users, who each have more than one device, and four physical servers, each being a DC holding a forest tree root, each hosting four VMs, two hosting one child domain, two hosting a root domain, for a total of four forests and TWELVE domains. Assume all servers are same version.

    How many CALs do they need?

  22. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon there is something I had forgot.

    How exactly the CAL explode. You are say 40 dollar per network this is not true.

    40 dollar per domain and at times per site.

    I deal with ADS forests. Yes a Forest can be all in one physical network.

    There are conditions if servers can share User and Device cals these are Written in the EULA of the CALs. This is why you need to read the EULA of the CALs. Just because you have 100 cals for X domain. That you and another domain those cals are not usable even if its the same machine client machine and even the same server running virtual instances of windows server. This becomes particular important in cases of Windows 7 machines in a ADS forest able to log into two sections of the Forest. So a laptop moving between sites in fact can require multi cal. Same with devices moving between sites.

    “But we did learn that this “CAL tax” is less than $40 whereas you had been saying that it was hundreds if not thousands of dollars. At least we are in the right ball park now, Mr. O’s idiocies notwithstanding.”

    Even so single server that is not correct. Each User login is counted for User Cals. Each Device is counted for Device cals. The user one changes with 2008+. 2003 was count your staff order the cals.

    So a percentage of your staff will require 2 or more cals todo there job using just 1 server no matter if you use user or device.

    Clarence Moon and Ted you are both talking a simple network design. A single site/department design. Multi site/department designs the price of the Microsoft solution can go up very quickly.

    The case we are look at Hungarian city of Miskolc is multi site/department.

    Basically you set up 3 server side by side different domains you CALs don’t spread. Its a important thing to be aware of.

    Servers running ADS in the same Domain are redundant backups of each other. One of the big problems with forests is that if a subdomain ADS server fails those machines can automatically route on by VPN networks to the next domain up the tree. Site licenses can become a real problem now.

    50 for site 1. 50 for site 2. Site 2 server fails since it was a sub domain all those machines have now route-red to site 1 that now to be legal requires 100 so it can run the fall over. Since it was site license site 2 license don’t automatically transfer to site 1. Also find user and device cals don’t automatically transfer across domains.

    EC external connectors we hoped would fix the fall over problem. That is how come I know they don’t cover staff.

    This is the explosion I am talking about. Multi location redundancy, subdomains all your nasty complex network stuff that you do for data security and other things.

    So you design network with redundancy with site splitting for security and stablity. Microsoft is downright expensive.

    Microsoft License basically makes it highly expensive todo particular network setups so people attempt to expand a Windows single domain as far as able even when its technically not good for business operations.

    Clarence Moon cal tax is way higher than what you are saying because you are only looking at the simple example. Small guys don’t see the Tax. Its also the Small guys who get the idea 1 day we will set up a subdomain and think they have enough cals then get audited and go o my god we did not.

    Ted presume on CAL transfer is that the second server is a backup to the first. Not going to be a standalone domain in it own right. Different domains does not mean different networks particularly when the different domain is a subdomain. Same network but no CAL transfer. Server can be in the same room or even on the same box.

  23. Clarence Moon says:

    the server. It does not say servers

    You are a hoot, Mr. O! Here you are trying to use some nuance of English to prove that you are not actually demented! English!

    Oh, and where is the reference about the Russians sending an automated probe to the moon and using it to retrieve samples from the lunar surface? Is your Google connection still broken?

  24. Clarence Moon says:

    But we did learn that this “CAL tax” is less than $40 whereas you had been saying that it was hundreds if not thousands of dollars. At least we are in the right ball park now, Mr. O’s idiocies notwithstanding.

    So the matter reduces to the question, “Is it worth $40 or so?” You are free to argue either side of the question.

  25. Ted says:

    @Oiaohm.

    Hypothetical situation time; An organisation has 100 users, who each have more than one device, and four physical servers,each hosting five VMs all running Windows Server 2008 R2, with user-accessible services (for the sake of argument, they all host a single file share) on all twenty VMs.

    How many CALs do they need?

    “Why the picture displays two and only 2 becomes clear when you read the cal license fully. Its your primary server and its backup server.”

    No it’s not. Where do you get that idea from? This “primary and backup” thing you seem to have fixed upon is NOTHING to do with CALs – it’s for the server license itself. You can legally install the software on two servers, as long as one is a cold backup, and you do not run both concurrently, apart from maintenance or update procedures.

    Here is a not exactly canonical, but appropriately titled article;

    http://www.kudzuworld.com/blogs/Tech/20080928.en.aspx

    That features this choice quote;

    “You only need one CAL per device or user, even if you have multiple servers.”

  26. Ted says:

    “True but they still had to buy two even if the 2K one is useless… A client PC can last ten years, long enough to buy 3 CALs for it.”

    Most businesses/organisations that use MS products and CALs and bother to do the (fairly easy) research or seek the advice of a reseller or MS themselves, would either get CALs with renewable Software Assurance, or ‘rent’ the CALs with a subscription-based license. Either of these keeps the CAL up to date, and is far cheaper than buying whole new CALs should they start to use a newer version of Windows Server/Exchange/SQL/whatever.

    “Certainly we learned M$ is a tar-pit of rules irrelevant to IT. I use GPL if I have the choice so that the rules are simple and clear.”

    The GPL is definitely not a good example of keeping things simple and clear. Even Stallman, who is the final arbiter of the GPL, can be confused in some cases.

    “The concept of a CAL is a tax on the network, something M$ does not own and has no right to tax.”

    Let’s put this one to bed right now, shall we?
    Microsoft are not a government or legislature and cannot levy taxes. The cost of a CAL/OEM Windows/server license/whatever is simply a license fee.

    And Microsoft DO own the rights for licensing usage of the software they produce.

  27. oiaohm says:

    Ted for per user and per device they don’t spread the way you think.

    EULA of the CAL is important.

    “That’s not what the EULA says. Each server comes with its own EULA saying thou shalt have a CAL.” That is the server license.

    Then the EULA of the CAL restricts how they can be used.

    Ted
    “User buys Server1 with Windows 2008R2 – EULA says you need CALs for users/devices. EULA for Server1 is sad. 🙁 User buys enough Windows 2008R2 CALs for all users/devices as appropriate. EULA for Server1 is happy. 🙂 User now buys Server2 with Windows 2008R2 – EULA says you need CALS for users/devices. User has already got CALs for all users/devices. EULA for Server2 is happy. 🙂 The End.”
    No buy Server 3 you are screwed at times because of the terms in the CAL EULA forbid how you joined it to network or configured it.

    The CAL licenses EULA is a very critical read.

    EC CAL has terms excluding your own staff. That covers everyone who is not your company only.

    Ted
    “If you have nine Exchange servers in various sites, a user does not need nine Exchange CALs and nine Windows Server CALs to connect to their mailbox. They need one of each, of the correct version.”
    They can require 9. If the 9 Exchange servers are not the same domain even if the mailboxes are replicated between them.

    In fact in the fine print of the EULA on the CALs you find out that they are not nice. It all comes down to if a server is a possible backup or not

    The problem here is you need to read the EULA of the Server and the EULA of the CAL to understand its restrictions. Server says it needs a cal in its EULA. The CAL says what it allows.

    The EC CAL clearly states it only allows non staff.

    Per User and Per Device CAL EULA define what is classed as a Unified network. Yes Subdomains are a different network needing there own cals. Yes ugly windows 7 supporting login into many domains and sub-domains. Each being there own network even if they are physically using the same wires.

    There is even terms to ADS servers in the Per User and Per Device for 2008. Now you have a Per User or per Device cal and you install a 2008 server without ADS installed yes it can reuse the existing cals and the server can operate without extra cals.

    This is why its highly ugly. To log into the network you have to connect to the ADS server.

    Basically if a server has a domain controller on it the bugger triggers clauses in the EULA of the CALs. You are allowed a primary and a backup of the ADS hot. You are allowed as many cold backs of the ADS you like. Now if you want more hots you run into hell depending on where they are.

    Of course I presumes the 2000 still had an ADS on it.

    There are still terms in the CAL license from the age of NT 3.5.

    no CALs required this is never true. There is always a CAL there is always a CAL terms and conditions with the MS stuff.

    The per cpu core and the like is still a CAL. That is something you have wrong. A per cpu core is a CAL with a EULA that reads if you only have so many cpu cores you are allowed unlimited users but only for that server.

    Clarence Moon
    “There is nothing in the system to check for CALs, so it is just a paper thing. I didn’t know that before this thread started, so we all learned something.”
    There is some things in the system that check CAL usage but its likely to be reading low. So if you trust it you are screwed. So MS now says in all paperwork don’t trust it.

    Yes Cal tracking is highly annoying paperwork with highly complex terms. Like you with EC terms not counting staff of your own company. This is a very common mistake.

    Then in the per user per device terms excluding sub-domains and many other options.

    Site licenses gets evil for companies with multi physical buildings and depending on what one depends if you are allowed sub-domains or not.

    “Bottom line, though, the costs for CALs on a per user basis cannot exceed $40”

    Not 100 percent true on a single server either. True 2003 and prior on a single server.

    2008 and later “Windows User CAL for every named user accessing your servers.” Yep 2008 you don’t count users you count login accounts on 2008. Every login account you have to pay for. So if you are administrator and you have an administrator account and a user account you now cost two CALs. Create a third account to run a sql server leave it with a login enabled cost another cal. Create a test account for some reason cost another Cal. Lucky you get those back as you delete accounts.

    Device CALs and User CALs have teeth these days. Go create a few extra accounts for web usage leave them with login option you might have pushed User CALs over limits.

    There can be operational requirements were a person needs more than one account. So will be costing more than 1 cal. Just like a person needing more than 1 device. Yes this is why it gets really messed up at times with a mixture of device cal and per user cal.

    Clarence Moon lets put it this way for someone like me who is a network designer. You design the network one way you need one number of cals. You design it another you need a lot more. Now that other design at times would be more useful for security but you cannot do because the budget will not extend that far. Cals are not company wide as well they are only network wide in most cases and site licenses building wide. So you want a split off network for some reason say hello more cals.

    Clarence Moon
    “Microsoft and we just pay a negotiated fee annually that is only a couple of bucks, apparently, per employee.”
    You need to get a copy of that if you are working as web designer doing complex sites. To make sure there is no nasty teeth in it. They don’t need to show you how much they paid but you do need to see the terms in case there are restrictions on what you are allowed todo.

    Some site licenses are just that no remote access supported. Yes cheaper. You expose remote login to ADS by web you have just made company infringe site license.

    This is why I like Linux. I don’t need a huge stack of paperwork that I have to read just to write a website to keep the company out of legal trouble.

    Yes site licenses is another from of Cal license.

    Clarence Moon configuration of network controls if it is 1 cal or many. Multi ADS servers configured different ways trigger more and more cals.

    Sub domain + multi site equals headache. VPN linked servers depending on what license you are using depends if the CAL applies at the other physical location. Yet for fall over the other physical location may need to be able to take all the client machines by the VPN link.

    MS CAL licenses turn ugly in more ways than 1. Primary and backup at a location with MS design of license is almost always safe.

    Multi Site is what I am use to. You don’t normally place more than 2 ADS servers at a site out of policy. But other sites have there own local ADS servers. Yes the idea that CAL extend across you complete network is only possibly valid if you are not going WAN linked using ISP VPNs or privately placed fibre. Third server doing ADS is always in a different physical location.

    “That is not a possible source for the 3000 euro annual cost of Microsoft licenses that the original post references.”
    The case they are referring to is a Multi-site problem.

    Ted
    “You only have multiple CALs per-user for multiple services – SQL, Exchange, Sharepoint, etc. ”
    That might be true in Networks that are only 1 physical site. I know its not true in multi-site setups. Again its the CAL EULA limitations.

  28. Clarence Moon wrote, “we all learned something”.

    Certainly we learned M$ is a tar-pit of rules irrelevant to IT. I use GPL if I have the choice so that the rules are simple and clear. The concept of a CAL is a tax on the network, something M$ does not own and has no right to tax. It’s just another reason to avoid that other OS. Use GNU/Linux. It’s not cripple-ware.

  29. Clarence Moon says:

    Don’t ask me why…

    I sense you are beginning to see the light, Mr. Pogson, so we can dismiss this topic except for clearing up this one last piece of misinformation. You only need one CAL regardless of the number of servers on your network, but that one CAL has to be valid for the latest version of Windows Server that you have in service. So the Windows 2008 CAL is valid for Windows2K3 access.

    Bottom line, though, the costs for CALs on a per user basis cannot exceed $40 (maybe less, I haven’t looked at volume pricing) and can cover multiple years. That is not a possible source for the 3000 euro annual cost of Microsoft licenses that the original post references. (I did ask about this and we, like most really big companies, have a site licenses sort of thing with Microsoft and we just pay a negotiated fee annually that is only a couple of bucks, apparently, per employee. There is nothing in the system to check for CALs, so it is just a paper thing. I didn’t know that before this thread started, so we all learned something.)

  30. Ted wrote, “they still only need one.”

    True but they still had to buy two even if the 2K one is useless… A client PC can last ten years, long enough to buy 3 CALs for it.

  31. Ted says:

    “That’s not what the EULA says. Each server comes with its own EULA saying thou shalt have a CAL. That’s two CALs for two servers. Several systems include CALs. That would make no sense otherwise.”

    You shall have _A_ CAL. If they meant CALs for each server, they’d say so. You really think they’d allow legal wiggle room in this, if they meant one CAL per user/device PER-SERVER?

    One CAL each for device or user as appropriate, and you can legally connect to as many servers as you own, as long as the CALs are the correct version.

    A short story to illustrate…

    User buys Server1 with Windows 2008R2 – EULA says you need CALs for users/devices. EULA for Server1 is sad. 🙁 User buys enough Windows 2008R2 CALs for all users/devices as appropriate. EULA for Server1 is happy. 🙂 User now buys Server2 with Windows 2008R2 – EULA says you need CALS for users/devices. User has already got CALs for all users/devices. EULA for Server2 is happy. 🙂 The End.

    You only have multiple CALs per-user for multiple services – SQL, Exchange, Sharepoint, etc.

    As pointed out above to Oiaohm, but a different example – if I have fifteen SQL servers, I can either license them per processor/core and forget about CALs (very expensive in these days of hex/octo-cores, but comparable to Oracle), or I buy one Server License per server and ONE CAL for every user, regardless of how many of those servers they connect to. There are instances where you would mix licensing modes.

    “You do need two CALs per user if you have a 2000 server and a 2003 server.”

    Ah. That particular case. I can see why this would confuse. But…

    No. You still only need ONE – the 2003 CAL. A CAL can connect to anything and any number, as long as it’s an equivalent version or lesser. The 2000 CAL becomes useless, unless you upgrade it, or you can assign it to a user that doesn’t connect to 2003.

    Oiaohm is correct about the “authenticated users must still have a CAL” bit on Windows Server Web – but they still only need one.

  32. Ted says:

    “Simple reality CAL licenses don’t spread between severs.”

    For Per-Device and Per-user, yes they do.

    “Each server must have its own issue of cals using 1 of the 3 options.”

    No, they don’t.

    Per-server concurrent connection licensing has been dropped, I believe. It’s all per-device, per-user, EC or no CALs required now.

    “Its the fact you have 3 servers you need 3 times the CALs unless a server is a backup that is only fired up when one crashes.”

    No. You don’t. If a server is a cold backup, you don’t even need a SERVER license for it. The server license counts for the box the software is RUNNING on, not installed on. Passive nodes of SQL don’t need server licenses or CALs either, as long as no users connect to them.

    If you have nine Exchange servers in various sites, a user does not need nine Exchange CALs and nine Windows Server CALs to connect to their mailbox. They need one of each, of the correct version.

  33. oiaohm says:

    Ted go read the link you provided this time carefully.
    “With the User CAL, you purchase a CAL for every user who accesses the server to use services such as file storage or printing, regardless of the number of devices they use for that access.”
    Did you catch it
    “With a Device CAL, you purchase a CAL for every device that accesses your server, regardless of the number of users who use that device to access the server.”
    Can you see it now.

    the server. It does not say servers.

    Why the picture displays two and only 2 becomes clear when you read the cal license fully. Its your primary server and its backup server.

    3 active servers with unique roles is 3 sets of cals. 6 services where 3 are backup servers is also only 3 sets of cals since the backup servers can take up the roles of the other 3.

    To be correct Ted and Clarence Moon appears to get it wrong Microsoft statements are always legally correct but deceptive. They clearly state separate. A separate cal. Problem is its not a separate cal if its used on another server and the fact a backup server is not a different server.

    This explains Robert Pogson 2000 and 2003 servers requiring a double set of cals. Since both machines are not installed with the same OS the 2000 is not a backup of the 2003 and the 2003 is not a backup of the 2000. So each must have Cals in its own right.

    The BSA audits will refer you to the EULA documents themselves and tell you pay up or you are screwed. The CAL license are not worded for multi server deployment. They do not give a single rats what the Microsoft website says.

    The EULA that is the final line in the sand clearly states that you cannot Ted and Clarence Moon.

    This is why lots and lots of companies can fined for running pirated software. They have followed the instructions you guys are talking about and result under acquired Cals.

    Also you notice everywhere else where people think ok its multi server. It says two servers. What are Primary and backup in the EULA’s. This starts with NT. Primary Domain Controller and Backup Domain Controller. Primary and Backup can use the same set of cals. This is in the Cal EULA and the Server EULA.

    If you are talking servers with any primary role that will not fall over to the other server they are no longer a Backup.

    Interesting point by the EULA the primary and backup are considered to be 1 server from the point of view of Cals but you must have individual Microsoft software licenses for each. It does halve your CAL requirements at times. But that does not help you that much either.

    So one point of view in MS documentations 2 boxes are 2 servers and from another point of view in MS documentation 2 boxes are 1 server. Confusing right. Then depending on how and what is installed on the server depends if you need 1 set of cals or 2 sets of cals.

    Please note I count a server and its backup server as 1 server.

  34. Ted wrote, “You need either ONE CAL per user, or ONE CAL per device, regardless of how many servers you have.”

    That’s not what the EULA says. Each server comes with its own EULA saying thou shalt have a CAL. That’s two CALs for two servers. Several systems include CALs. That would make no sense otherwise.

    M$ sells remote access to a service. Two servers, twice the access. Why would M$ bother for one CAL for a LAN with one user and 100 servers? Of course this could all be smoke to encourage contact with slimy salesmen…

    UPDATE: According to M$:
    “27. Convert the usage number into a license count.
    The number of CALs you need equals the number of your users or devices, whichever is less. You need User CALs to license users and Device CALs to license devices.
    You may license Windows Server with a combination of user and device CALs if that would reduce the total number of CALs you need, but you must calculate that manually.
    The version of Windows Server CALs must be to the same as or later than the version of Windows Server you have deployed. The exception: you may use Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 CALs for their respective R2 servers. (No version-specific CALs for Windows Server R2 versions are available.)”

    So,it’s simpler than I believed but more complex than Ted believed. You do need two CALs per user if you have a 2000 server and a 2003 server. Don’t ask me why…

    This goes to reinforce what I have always said, M$ makes things overly complex for no good reason, except increasing revenue. There’s nothing in it for the users.

  35. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon
    “One CAL, many servers, get it through your thick head!”
    Go to jail do not pass GO. This is a pure illegal statement when it comes to Microsoft licensing.

    From the microsoft “Client Access Licensing Overview”
    1)”With the Per User CAL model, a separate CAL is required for each unique user who accesses a server.”
    2)”With the Per Device CAL model, a separate CAL is required for each unique device that accesses a server.”
    3)”With the Per Server CAL model, a separate CAL is required for each unique device that accesses a server simultaneously.”

    Simple reality CAL licenses don’t spread between severs. Each server must have its own issue of cals using 1 of the 3 options. There are many illegal installs where Microsoft Auditors come in and find what you describe. So really its go to jail do not pass go. The question is how long before you get audited Clarence Moon.

    The key legal word is “separate”. You cannot multi use a Cal.

    Windows Communication Foundation does not avoid you from having cals or Linux so you don’t need cals. This is due to the way IIS works. I have seen people try to share network share over Windows Communications Foundation. You find out each IIS connection when it enters the local network counts as either user, connection or device at times(because the windows storage server diagnoses wrong and thinks a the connection is a new device even that it has been talking to that device ie device licensing is not stable with many connections). Yes there is a reason to have Linux storage.

    Clarence Moon the reality you stating lies. Mind you I have that Client Access Licensing Overview in paper form here you should be able to find that in google.

    Do you now see why I call CAL’s evil. If they were 1 per workstation covering ever server in a network they would not be evil. Its the fact you have 3 servers you need 3 times the CALs unless a server is a backup that is only fired up when one crashes. Very quickly does the CAL price add up. 20-50 dollars a service provided.

    Clarence Moon
    “And that is only if you have some old-style software ware where you need to access a server directly.”
    Reason why its become old-style software is not because its not effective because Microsoft is out to take blood from you in CAL licensing. So you do anything to avoid CAL’s. Cals are the nightmare.

    In a lot of ways that old-style software is more productive.

    Here is where people really get caught WCF does not need cals right.

    http://stackoverflow.com/questions/745830/does-each-authenticated-wcf-client-connection-need-a-cal

    Not quite true. If you are planing on using Active Directory authentication from WCF you need CAL’s for the Active Directory Server if you use Microsoft Active Directory server of course.

    Clarence Moon nothing you just said to me is true. Best was a Half truth. WCF is Cal free if you don’t want to use the active-directory to authenticate users or use any other MS service that requires Cals from you WCF application.

    Yes a external connector is still a Cal. Number of connections cal. Notice with a external connector if someone connect to the server using the local network the external connector cal does not apply. external connector cal is only for external users. This is a common mistake with MS Web server editions. It comes with a free external connector no local usage rights included other than 1. So yes lot of MS Web Server editions are running illegally.

    This is the problem most Microsoft fans don’t have a single clue what the costs are or the legal requirements. They think Microsoft is cheap. The thing is down right toxic expensive in the server room. Microsoft only appears cheap when you are miss using licenses.

    If you do go and read your External Connector license it does not cover the businesses own staff even connecting by internet. For your own staff you have to buy Cals. Microsoft wants so much per staff member per server.

  36. Clarence Moon says:

    Silly, but true.

    It is starting to look like you do not understand the notion of CAL licensing, Mr. Pogson, as much as you rant about them. If you have 3 servers on your hypothetical network, you only need one CAL, either assigned to the user of multiple devices or to the device itself that would allow multiple users.

    The bulk of your posts seem to describe the work-arounds that you have introduced for using Linux servers and workstations in place of Windows in rural schools. If that is all true, then I suspect that your hands-on experience with Windows, Windows servers, and Windows workstations is either very limited or out of date or both.

    The more modern approach to corporate computing is to provide business data via web services, either http or tcp accessed, to aggregate and send data to workstations for presentation and/or updates. The type of “thin” client architecture you continually promote is not the norm and has not been for decades. The file or application sharing that you suggest is inefficient is indeed just that and has largely been replaced by the .NET structures.

  37. Ted says:

    “Like a school with 100 PCs sharing files back and forth? M$ requires a server licence (~$1K) and a CAL per machine… That comes to $50 per machine for licences. ”

    Expensive, for a Windows Server CAL. (They’re about $35 each – Canadian, not US). Did someone ever consider getting the server license and CALs at Academic pricing? They do that for schools, you know.

    “Then consider a school with three servers… $150 per machine just for permission to use the network that the school owns. Silly, but true.”

    Nope.

    You need either ONE CAL per user, or ONE CAL per device, regardless of how many servers you have. You do NOT need multiple CALs to connect to other servers.

    http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/client-access-license.aspx

  38. Clarence wrote, “It is hard to imagine any organization where any individual or workstation would need more than $100 worth of CALs over a multiple year period.”

    Like a school with 100 PCs sharing files back and forth? M$ requires a server licence (~$1K) and a CAL per machine… That comes to $50 per machine for licences. Then consider a school with three servers… $150 per machine just for permission to use the network that the school owns. Silly, but true.

  39. Clarence Moon says:

    Clarence Moon its really simple if you are not careful to run up 3000 EURO in License costs per User with commercial software that contains Cals. Just have many locations and deploy many servers. Huge licensing bill.

    You are an idiot, Mr. O, but I knew that from your previous posts. If you have a current CAL for your workstation, you can access any server on your network. One CAL, many servers, get it through your thick head!

    And that is only if you have some old-style software ware where you need to access a server directly. Everyone today uses WCF and client apps that do not need CALs anymore. It is hard to imagine any organization where any individual or workstation would need more than $100 worth of CALs over a multiple year period.

  40. oiaohm wrote, “for 1 to 2 percent of documents is it really worth a MS Office license at every seat or served from server better option?”

    No, for the same reasons everyone owning a Cadillac makes no sense. Competition on price/performance protects us from monopoly and gives us a better deal. It’s not just about spending less money but on how we apportion the money we spend. Hardware is a great buy. Software is not when a monopoly gets to dictate the price far above cost of replacement. If every user on the planet threw $10 into the pot they could have one Hell of an office suite in a year or two. That’s essentially what OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice represent, cooperative software products of the world provided at cost.

  41. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon some of what he lists there does run up the licenses bill.

    “redundant hardware, everywhere”
    Those need licenses and cals right if someone placed Windows boxes at all those locations.

    “contract for X% availability where X is close to 100%.”

    Causes first problem.

    “pay M$ for extra licences, just in case”

    Caused by having to bauk order to get discounted rate. Result is normally over ordering.

    Clarence Moon its really simple if you are not careful to run up 3000 EURO in License costs per User with commercial software that contains Cals. Just have many locations and deploy many servers. Huge licensing bill.

    “Although Miskolc has not been able to reduce the number of applications, which was one of the targets, it has managed to dramatically reduce the costs of Microsoft licenses.”

    If you want a retraction as untrue I will give it to you Clarence Moon.

    The true text should read “€3,000+ per user per year on licenses“.

    Reason the saving in licenses has been greater than the higher operational costs doing support and running the system.

    There is another interesting number “So in one to two per cent of cases we have to open the documents using a Microsoft Office program.”

    One to two percent of recieved documents don’t open in libreoffice.

    “We wish we could ask our partners to stop sending us documents containing macros.”
    Hmmm. Wonder how many turn out to be infected.

    Now for 1 to 2 percent of documents is it really worth a MS Office license at every seat or served from server better option??

    LibreOffice does have better document opening support than OpenOffice. This will improve even more due to some of the government funding.

  42. Clarence Moon says:

    It’s easy to run up the bill

    But you posted “€3,000 per user per year on licenses“. Do you want to retract that as untrue?

  43. oiaohm says:

    Phenom https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/elibrary/case/hungarian-city-miskolc-saving-%E2%82%AC3000-user-year-licenses

    Read the link I would not be surprised if they did not have a massive over deployment issue with Microsoft Products. Being replaced by a massive over deployment of FOSS. Ok FOSS does not hurt budget as bad.

    For a massive over deployments I have seen 3000 euro could be the tip of the iceberg.

  44. Phenom says:

    TLDR version of Pogson: I have no idea where these $3000 per user did come from, but I want to believe it.

  45. kozmcrae says:

    @ldman wrote:

    “You first!”

    I get hit with the spam filter all the time. The difference is I don’t complain about it, just you weenies. So I don’t need to stop writing spam-filter worthy writ since I don’t complain about it. Get a life.

  46. oiaohm wrote, “if someone is spending 3000euros per seat running Microsoft Software and it does not include hardware someone needs there ass kicked in most cases.”

    It’s easy to run up the bill:

    • contract for X% availability where X is close to 100%.
    • The contractor pays extra for everything, hoping it all hangs together including:
      • redundant hardware, everywhere,
      • best brands,
      • 24×7 coverage,
      • 3 levels of “support”, and
      • long burn-in and short lifetime on hardware.
    • pay M$ for extra licences, just in case,
    • use every monitoring, backup, management, diagnostic, filtering and anti-malware package known to man and hire experts in the use of each, and
    • make sure everything is logged, reported and verified every few seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, quarters and years to CYA in quintuplicate.

    I have never worked for anyone with that kind of cash, thank Goodness! But I have read budgets that were 3-10 times what we spent for essentially the same service. I have worked for people who never thought of repairing an ATX PC… That probably trebles the hardware and licensing cost alone.

  47. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon there is other ways the saving could be as huge cleaning out limited production software and other junk governments have a habit collecting.

    “Windows Pro, MS Office, and even a CAL should it be required to access servers on their network. And those licensese are good for multiple years of use.”

    3000 euros is possible with MS products if you give into peoples wants not their needs and over deploy.

    Clarence Moon MS Office has a total of 8 server products. Each that require cal licenses if you use them and each instance of those servers need cal license. Then you have the possibility of many SQL server licenses and you have software development stuff and so on.
    All bring the cost of the end user up.

    But I will say if someone is spending 3000euros per seat running Microsoft Software and it does not include hardware someone needs there ass kicked in most cases. Because normally its people having software on their computer to keep up with the jones not todo their job.

    This is something that has come out in every Linux migration. Even if the business fails to Migrate to Linux they normally do take on a cost saving long term. Why software that is installed has been audit if people need it or not.

    Lot of business don’t do a audit of software usage until they have to. This is a problem. Some companies you will be talking millions of dollars being spent without any chance of ever making a profit from it because really the people you are spending that on will never use the software because they don’t need it todo there job.

    Clarence Moon 3000 euro is not the record I have found. 3000 euro is about 3500 AUD. Yes the company was not doing too well. They had managed to get to 8400 AUD a user in Microsoft CALs. Not your MS Office license or your Windows licenses just CALs. Cause Multi sites joined by a VPN contain with a server at each site with a full list of cals todo everything. The final figure for per user cost in that network was completely insane.

    Remember you have anti-virus, accountancy software,… Cals have not mentioned yet. It was getting to the point that some part time staff were have more spend on them in software than what they took up for the complete year.

    Cals are evil they can quickly be acquired wrong. Since they are not on the desktop machine they can go unnoticed. All the servers costed about the same to deploy and update its fine was one of the logic that had stopped them investigating. Followed by the logic servers are expensive its normal.

    Clarence Moon one of the key advantages of FOSS stuff is if its over deployed it cost to your budget is minor. Reason why preference to FOSS is given in some business for items they are not sure how many they will need. Since over deployed and not used with FOSS is minor pain to budget.

    Really a good figure of any business to maintain is the cost per user. Its a simple tally sheet. It does start alert you to cases of over deployments.

    Clarence Moon I do suspect here are worst out there because what I saw was not a huge network by VPN standards. If you take the cost per cal and work backwards you should be able to tell me how many servers I was look at. You will find its not that many to make a 8400 AUD per user problem.

  48. Clarence Moon says:

    Lower licensing and maintenance costs…

    The article and your headline tout “3000 euros per user per year” and your voodoo quickstep math can account for some $220, given the worst possible conditions, Mr. Pogson. You are woefully short of the mark and no amount of hand waving is ever going to bridge that gap. Give it up. The article is bogus as are the claimed savings.

  49. oldman says:

    “Then stop writing spam.”

    You first!

  50. kozmcrae says:

    Phenom wrote:

    “Spam filter again.”

    Then stop writing spam.

  51. iLia wrote, “how they manage to save €3,000 per user per year?”

    Lower licensing and maintenance costs. In the process they went from isolated PCs to centrally managed PCs. That cuts maintenance costs seriously. They have 600+ clients. If they change them every five years for $600 worth of M$’s licences and CALs, that’s $120 per seat per annum. They have also consolidated servers and have 30 servers running GNU/Linux. If those servers represented 100 servers running that other OS the price per licence would be ~$100K plus $150K of CALs, $250K amounting to $100 per user per annum. So, the licensing is only part of the savings. The rest comes from rejigging the IT. I can see that very simply. When one does more on the server and less on the client, fewer body-hours of maintenance are needed. On the largest system I installed, we went from needing one body part-time for 30 clients to one body part-time for 180 clients. That’s a huge reduction per-user per-annum.

    iLia could argue that GNU/Linux did not reduce maintenance costs but the flexibility of the licensing did allow them to make optimum use of hardware which did, so an indirect benefit above and beyond licensing costs.

  52. Clarence Moon says:

    3000 Euros is a lot of money, Mr. Pogson. It seems to me that a company would, at the worst, be stuck for a few hundred dollars per employee to equip them with Windows Pro, MS Office, and even a CAL should it be required to access servers on their network. And those licensese are good for multiple years of use.

    The cite says that the goal is simply to replace those products and that they are having the devil of a time doing so. I think someone is pulling your leg.

  53. Phenom wrote, “I wouldn’t be so eager to brag about Miskolc”

    Nonsense. Any IT system that is old enough to have old clients is likely to have cobwebs that need to be cleared in the process and some users have problems with any change at all. The extra costs for training are likely to amount to a few hours of employees pay per employee, far less than the licensing costs.

    Munich was able to do away with many applications largely because there were duplicates. It did take some effort to ferret them out. I am confident that Miskolc will revisit the issue and continue to improve their IT layout. Switching OS is just one step in a continuing process they might have done even without switching OS.

    Clearly, Miskolc feels the project is a success or they would not be commenting on it publicly.

  54. Phenom says:

    Spam filter again.

  55. Phenom says:

    You are clutching at straw, Mr. Pogson. Reading the text carefully, I couldn’t help but notice a few important details:
    1) Costs savings are on licenses only.
    2) Migration is half-successful.
    Quote: “Although Miskolc has not been able to reduce the number of applications, which was one of the targets, it has managed to dramatically reduce the costs of Microsoft licenses”
    3) Costs for management and administration have increased.
    Quote: “Despite the higher management costs of this environment

    “They do have a lot of problems with the office software, but our IT department is helping them to make it work”

    4) Training is not yet complete, meaning more costs are not taken into consideration yet.
    Quote: “The training of users on all the new software is still in progress.”
    5) Additional costs, coming from the reduced efficiency, are not considered, too. (See your own reference of macros)
    6) Project is overdue
    Quote: “Open SKM was the first partner in this project and they started the implementation in 2010. It should have been completed by the end of that year, but they are still working on some tasks.”

    Sounds more like half-failure than half-success. It is definitely no success at all.

    If I were you, I wouldn’t be so eager to brag about Miskolc.

  56. iLia says:

    Some quotes from the article:

    And because we have not gone ahead with bulk conversion of existing documents from DOC to ODF, we have had no problems there.

    The lesson we learned here is that external factors make it impossible to fully migrate to open source software at this moment.

    For the German city of Freiburg this is the very reason to consider ending the use of the open source office productivity suite OpenOffice and revert to Microsoft Office for all of its nearly 2,000 desktop systems.

    Obviously, a heterogeneous IT infrastructure like this is much more complicated to run and maintain than a homogeneous infrastructure.

    And how they manage to save €3,000 per user per year? Did they bought new Windows and MS Office licenses every year?

Leave a Reply