Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Revamps Licensing Plans

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the adapt-or-die-die-die dept.

Microsoft 356

prostoalex writes "Microsoft is introducing significant changes into its licensing program, faced with competition from Linux, as Reuters article suggests. First, Microsoft starts giving away free server licenses to its Software Assurance Program customers, if the PC is not actually used in production and is not present on the network. Such licensing would be convenient for disaster recoveries, where it's important to replace a failed server as soon as possible without calling Microsoft support or licensing partner. Support lifecycle is also extended to 10 years for a variety of products, including Windows 2000, Windows XP and SQL Server 2000."

cancel ×

356 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352875)

I believe that sums it up.

Ah who cares (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352879)

Buy a fucking Mac already.

In 10 years? (5, Insightful)

neuro.slug (628600) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352881)

Will people actually be running copies of Windows 2000, XP, etc. in 10 years?

-- n

Re:In 10 years? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352908)

Yes. Yes they will. I still regularly get systems coming into my repair shop running win95. Hell, I even get the ocational win3.11 system.

Re:In 10 years? (1)

pherris (314792) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352917)

Will people actually be running copies of Windows 2000, XP, etc. in 10 years?

Sure, some people still run MS-DOS or Novell's NetWare 3.x. I suspect someone out there is still using a TRS-80 Model III on a daily basis for their business. Is it a good idea? Well, that's for another discusion.

Re:In 10 years? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353005)

My boss is still running a multi million buck a year business off of mostly old 486's running DOS something, I never found out the version number, I don't work at the "downtown" office, only visited there twice His attitude is, if it ain't broke, it don't need fixin'.. He paid obscene large amount of cash for it way back when, and it's still working! So he doesn't see any need to change. About a 30 guy shop, it's actually a cluster of smaller businesses run under an umbrella organization. He has two newer compaqs running some propietary stuff to access one of his suppliers on the net, besides that, all the payroll/accounting/inventory management, etc is all DOS. I saw his secretary typing away, then saw her shift to some console and saw back slashes and I asked her "is that DOS11!?!1"
She said "yep, what we always had"

Re:In 10 years? (3, Interesting)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353110)

Some of the TRS-80-era portable PCs were the most rugged computers ever made. I read a story a while back about them still being used in places where people driving things over the PC case was a plausible scenario.

Probably... (5, Informative)

macshune (628296) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352919)

I've seen many businesses that still run NT4 and I even know a few folks that still use 3.1, but the latter is the exception, rather than the rule. It's pretty expensive to upgrade software, not just in the cost of the product itself, but in lost productivity and people-hours needed to perform the upgrade. when you have a large organization these costs can be prohibitive and procrastination seems very attractive. of course, any other slashdotter probably could tell you the same thing...

Re:Probably... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352972)

procrastination seems very attractive. of course, any other slashdotter probably could tell you the same thing.

I could have done but I thought that if I waited a bit maybe someone else would say it and save me the bother.

Re:Probably... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353066)

Um. A *lot* of businesses - including major corporations in the Forbes 500 - still run NT4. What other option do they have if they're a windows shop?

Re:Probably... (4, Funny)

beatnitup (616700) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353118)

"It's pretty expensive to upgrade software, not just in the cost of the product itself, but in lost productivity and people-hours needed to perform the upgrade" Cost is indeed expensive, but I've upgraded over a hundred computers to xp via network installation and it only took about a little over an hour.

Re:Probably... (4, Insightful)

xanadu-xtroot.com (450073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353167)

I've upgraded over a hundred computers to xp via network installation

You did check the hardware specs before hand, right? You didn't? Oh, well, I guess they were all newer machines then? Oh, you don't know?
Hmmm....

Re:In 10 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352921)

MICROSOFT HOPE NOT!

Human Resources (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352925)

Well, give is another 6 years and people will be able to qualify for those weird job requirements of having 10 years experience of win2k.

:)

Re:In 10 years? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352934)

Yeah, I probably will still be running Windows 2000, if I haven't switched to Linux or another platform by then.

I'd like to upgarde to XP, but I absolutely will not tolerate product activation in something as mission-critical as an operating system. It's not an option for me. I refuse to permit my OS vendor from deciding on a day-to-day basis whether I'm going to be allowed to boot up my machine.

That seems to be OK for most folks, so I'm just going to put my tinfoil hat back on and go back to Win2K now.

Re:In 10 years? (4, Insightful)

Lispy (136512) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352961)

If they shift Longhorn just a few more times this could well happen. ;-)

Re:In 10 years? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352964)

I got a tech support ring that a printer was not responding on Thursday.

Ancient printer on top of a locked cabinet. Noone around could find a key and aside from the door in the front there was a power and cat5 cable coming out from a hole in the back.

After about 10 minutes w/ my Gerber ripping the cabinet open I discovered a 486DX running a PC-DOS print server.

Pushed the reboot button on the front of the case and to my shock it actually booted back up again (old PC HD's have a tedency not to spin back up). Tested it and it printed fine.

Pushed the cabinet back up to the wall and chuckled to myself. Made a note in our ticket system and called it a day.

Just a note: There's alot of shit out there running that sometimes the IT department doesn't even know about. I wouldn't doubt if there are a few other of these PCDOS print servers and prolly a few 3.1 machines around.

Re:In 10 years? (5, Interesting)

fleabag (445654) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352977)

In corporate land, they may well be.

We replaced a horrible mix of Win95 and Win98 with Win2K in 2001. There is still a bit of Win95 around, but it is dying slowly.

We are looking at Longhorn coming out in 2006 (maybe) or 2007 (probably) or 2008 (possibly). If Longhorn comes out in 2007/8 - we would not even consider upgrading until 2009. If there is no driver to change, then we would push further; Longhorn will mean new PCs, which jacks up the cost again. I could easily see a scenario where we are happily running Win2K in 2010. We might be getting a bit itchy by 2014...!

99% of our users need email, simple office and a browser. If Win2K does the job (and it pretty much does)...then what is the incentive to drop $20 million on new PCs and a new OS roll-out? And yes, some form of Linux desktop in about 2007 looks pretty attractive to me...

Re:In 10 years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352981)

I will, because I will probably need to run windows, and I refuse to use the new shit.

Fuck Windows XP and that activation bullshit.

I don't worry about the hardware because it will run nicely inside Virtual PC 10 on a G9 or something.

Take care losers that can't get laid.

Re:In 10 years? (2, Funny)

TheOtherAgentM (700696) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352993)

I have clients that run DOS programs. Trust me. People will be running 2000 and XP in 10 years. Why do you think Microsoft delayed the removal of support of Windows 98? I bet they found 98 machines running in their offices.

Re:In 10 years? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353039)

HA!

You act like Microsoft will have something else out before then.

Yes, in ten years, if not longer (5, Interesting)

DragonHawk (21256) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353059)

When it comes to budget, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rules the day. Companies would prefer to keep using the same computer systems forever, if they did the job. And I cannot say that's really a wrong attitude.

Of course, at many companies, the attitude is "even if it is broke, don't fix it unless it's stopping production outright". I just spent two weeks in a rather insane upgrade-a-thon at a customer, because they got bought by a larger company, and their new corporate IT department nearly had a heart attack when they saw the state of their systems. Many computers were stilling running Windows 95. Their main server was running Novell NetWare 4.11. These products are ten years old, unsupported, obsolete, and flat out broken. Win95 can't even get a DHCP lease without three patches (Y2K bugs). Oh, and a fleet of ten megabit unmanaged repeaters. And dead anti-virus software. And missing the disks for the backup software. And...

When corporate deployed their anti-virus software to this site, it darn near exploded. Over 8000 infected files on one PC alone. Their WAN guys were screaming bloody murder about all the worm traffic coming from this site.

It was great fun. For sufficiently small definitions of "fun".

Re:In 10 years? (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353061)

People are still tolerating Win95 (usually becuase the computer in question is too much a POS to run anything newer) so i'd say, proably so.

Re:In 10 years? (1)

MajorDick (735308) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353159)

I think they mean a 10 year LIFECYCLE, there is a big difference between 10 years from the date released and 10 years from NOW

If it aint broke don't fix it... (1)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353237)

Surprising as it may seem, many people have computers that do what they need them to do, with no need to change.

Alas, the rest of us are stuck with computers that suck.

Yay for competition (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352882)

And this is why Linux is good for you, even if you don't care about the actual software and are a Windows-only user.

Re:Yay for competition (4, Insightful)

RoLi (141856) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352945)

Exactly.

Microsoft's domination (a much better term than "monopoly") is coming to an end.

And the courts had absolutely no part in ending it...

Re:Yay for competition (4, Interesting)

AcidPhish (785961) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353114)

Its the so called law of the jungle. With the legal systems not able to control financially powerful organisations such as M$, then the natural reaction to this problem is for open source to become one of the only competitors to M$.

Unlike the courts, in competition such as this, the vast amounts of highly payed lawers cannot be of much use.

Thanks Bill (0, Troll)

slayer99 (15543) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352883)

Seems like some fairly sane policy from Redmond.

Re:Thanks Bill (1)

0utRun (772783) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353146)

the calm before the storm?

***I HATE NIGGERS*** (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352886)

scat

From MS' point ... (5, Insightful)

pherris (314792) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352887)

Extending XP et al lifecycles make sense. Maybe they think if people are forced to make a choice they'll go to Mac OS X, GNU/Linux or BSD.

IMO this is a sign that other OSs are legitimate competition. I suspect this was the reason for also extending Win98's lifecycle.

Re:From MS' point ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353044)

So they were going to ditch XP because the support was going to run out in a scant 7 years and go to OS-X (support cycle: approx. 1 year, maybe 2 at best, and all new apps don't work), Linux (Red Hat support cycle about the same, maybe RHEL will fix that) or BSD (desktop users: WTF is that?)?

Please. Microsoft's support and life cycle is far and away the best in the industry out of the alternatives you listed.

Re:From MS' point ... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353234)

You're a moron if you think any kind of M$ support beats any of the alternatives, regardless of their lifespan.
You're just the typical M$ sheep(customer).

I don' see how... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352888)

This is going to help anyway, unless their liscence allows free access to the operating systems source code and allows them to modify it, Linux is still better.

Re:I don' see how... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352936)

The average user does not care about source code. The average user does, however, care about being able to keep things running smoothly and having support when they need it.

Re:I don' see how... (4, Interesting)

xiang shui (762964) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352975)

But you're forgetting that with open-source, the 'average user' can hire ANY programmer who is familiar with the software, hell, any programmer who ISN'T familiar... he can become familiar by looking at the source.

With Windows, you're locked down to MS' (pretty terrible) support.

Re:I don' see how... (2, Insightful)

wibs (696528) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352996)

On the plus side, it's MS approved support. The problem with hiring ANY programmer to dig around in your OS is that not EVERY programmer is competent enough to do it right.

Re:I don' see how... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353168)

and, of course, Microsoft has done soooo well in the past.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta get back to cleanin' a Windows system for someone; last count 3 viruses and about 90 spyware!

Re:I don' see how... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353067)

Pardon me, but fuck no.

Say something happened to the Apache team. Whole team was on a bus tour of Utah, and got hit by a whale. It could happen. I'm still running Apache as my web server. You seriously think that I could bring in "hell, any programmer" to maintain it with the high level of detail and knowledge that the true Apache team had.

Fuck no.

Yes, with open source there are plenty of advantages, but don't pretend that simply because it's open source that it will be bug free, eternally supported, and better performing.

Re:I don' see how... (2, Insightful)

TwinkieStix (571736) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353223)

Not immediately, but over the course of 2-3 years, several programmers will pick up and be running quite quickly. It would only take a few months to get any decent programmer up to speed enough to start rolling in security patches to keep the thing alive until then. Don't forget that there are a ton of companies (Novell, Redhat, Mandrake) willing to throw lots of money and/or programmers at a project like apache so customers won't be upset. On a project as large and widely deployed as apache, we don't have to worry about that kind of thing.

Re:I don' see how... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353176)

I don't care if the "average user" doesn't care. I'm not an average user. As far as I'm concerned, you can all run windows if you want to - just don't try and stop me using and developing linux as I and my friends see fit. Which is exactly what microsoft is trying to do with software patents :-(

Wow, this is soo insightful. (5, Interesting)

OldSchoolNapster (744443) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353063)

The only thing Microsoft could do to improve their software is open their source code? Amazing.

I'll bet the guys in Redmond are slapping their foreheads as they read this post thinking, "All this time we have been doing things like making the Windows more stable (my laptop running XP hasn't crashed ONCE since my last reinstall) and supporting all kinds of wierd software and hardware, and making it easy to use. What we should have done is be more like Linux. That's easy to use and supports almost every component ever made, right?"

I don't know what is more sad, that somebody bothered to post this drivel, that somebody modded it up, or that people actually believe it.

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go find out which .conf file(s) I need to edit to get my tv-tuner card to work in my linux box.

Re:Wow, this is soo insightful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353108)

You're an idiot slave. Microsoft 0wns your PC while you run Windows. I use linux for Freedom. Those that don't care about freedom are welcome to windows, but if they get in my way I'll blow them out of the water.

Re:Wow, this is soo insightful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353155)

your points are only relevant if you don't give a crap about your own personal libery. I do, so I use Linux (and FreeBSD, because Linux NFS still kinda sucks).

Re:Wow, this is soo insightful. (2, Informative)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353164)

ceace - Ye frometh thine 1990's!!

modprobe bt989 ; mknod /dev/video1 c 81 1 ; ln -s /dev/video1 /dev/video0

and tahts in slackware - not exactly user friendly distro of the year.

according to hauppauge's website, it worked out the box on red hat 7.1 (afaik)

(this is based on a bt878 chipset)

Re:Wow, this is soo insightful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353178)

Now if you will excuse me, I have to go find out which .conf file(s) I need to edit to get my tv-tuner card to work in my linux box.

As I read this, I am cleaning a Windows system for someone at work; last count 3 viruses and ~90 spyware.

Re:Wow, this is soo insightful. (1)

TwinkieStix (571736) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353236)

That's odd. I use Mandrake 9.2 and I just threw in a winTV, turned on the machine, and clicked on xawtv in the menu. Under windows, it takes a lot more steps than that because windows doesn't come with the BTTV drivers or a TV viewing application.

No Choice... (5, Interesting)

KrisHolland (660643) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352893)

"Microsoft Revamps Licensing Plans"

Microsoft had no choice really. It was either extend their tech support, or watch many people turn to Linux when they next upgrade.

This just delays that, probably until longhorn where the choice between upgrading or Linux is to be made, in about 2 years.

*BSD is dying (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352895)

It is official; Netcraft confirms: *BSD is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

The beginning of the end (1)

machocomacho (760106) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352914)

There is no reason to prolong the inevitable, Linux will beat out Microsoft eventually, unless you can start buying windows for 50 bucks. The fall of rome.....

It was time. (5, Insightful)

totatis (734475) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352915)

Given the bad acceptance of Microsoft's licencing scheme in the IT, it was time Microsoft did something about it. It's not enough IMHO, but still.
What I like about current situation is that the appearance of solid competitors (around Linux) and the scrutinity of judiciary entities (namely EU), we might have a real free market again in the OS field. That would be great, no matter who the winner is. Free market is always better than a vorace monopoly, and I'd like to see real progress in the field, which can only occur in a competitive market.
I think the next few years will be very interesting, indeed. Imagine if we had as much offering in the OS field as in say the gaming field.

Re:It was time. (2, Interesting)

BuckaBooBob (635108) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352938)

Well with the number of patents MS is submutting a day I think they are trying to force out linux as being compatible with alot of MS's new services.. I just hope that MS's doesn't attempt to force a patented standard on the windows user base and succeed.. Hopefuly the ball will swing towards the open source standard and MS is forced to drop its patented "Technology".

inquiring minds want to know... (4, Interesting)

rah1420 (234198) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352922)

When the disaster strikes, and the software is enabled, will MSFT come knocking on the door with an invoice for the previously 'cold' software?

Re:inquiring minds want to know... (1)

narkotix (576944) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352939)

who's to tell em? unless the software phones home that is.....

Re:inquiring minds want to know... (1)

antoy (665494) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352946)

You just use the license of the dead server, I guess.

Re:inquiring minds want to know... (2, Insightful)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353035)

I imagine that the dead server would replace it as "cold".

Here's a scan. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352923)

OH COME ON FUCKNUTS THAT IS FUNNY (1)

You Are A Dumbass (547137) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353083)

unlike your shrivelled tiny cocks, which just provoke tears and horror.

10 years of support... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352935)

Does this mean that they don't think they can keep up the 'a new version every 3 years and you will migrate' strategy? If so, is that because they can't make enough new products (Longhorn >= 2007 ? ) or can't get people to migrate.

Re:10 years of support... (2, Insightful)

Maggot75 (163103) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352990)

Probably a little bit of both. Personally, I find Windows 2000 stable enough not to bother spending cash and a little bit of time upgrading to XP.

Re:10 years of support... (5, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353002)

If so, is that because they can't make enough new products (Longhorn >= 2007 ? ) or can't get people to migrate.

Yes. As software improves it gets harder and harder to improve it. As software improves people see less and less reason to upgrade.

It's called "maturation," which, for some reason, most propriatary software makers never saw coming.

KFG

Re:10 years of support... (1)

TheLinuxSRC (683475) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353107)

It's called "maturation," which, for some reason, most propriatary software makers never saw coming.

I think they did see it coming... which is why so many bugs still exist in their products (not to mention all the vaporware -- why release it until it is time to prod the market?). While they were prolonging the "upgrade cycle" open source and free software caught up to and in many ways surpassed the quality of their proprietary alternatives (not to say that open source and free software is bug-free of course).

Re:10 years of support... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353021)

(Longhorn >= 2007 ? )
Gigabytes

Dupe? (1)

g-to-the-o-to-the-g (705721) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352937)

Isn't this a partial dupe? [slashdot.org]

Re:Dupe? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352994)

On a lesser site partial dupes my count. Slashdot, however, is the internet center for dupe articles and we expect correspondingly high standards. If the editor wanted to score a dupe for this article then he needed to do rather better than just "partial".

Never Use (4, Insightful)

Pheonix5000 (661842) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352958)

Microsoft starts giving away free server licenses to its Software Assurance Program customers, if the PC is not actually used in production and is not present on the network So the liscence is free IF you never use it? hmmm...

It's an improvement, but... (5, Interesting)

tji (74570) | more than 10 years ago | (#9352962)

free server licenses to its Software Assurance Program customers, if the PC is not actually used in production and is not present on the network

That's a step in the right direction. But, I am not a big fan of that type of licensing. I ran into several applications that used this same logic. The problem is that we architect our services for automatic failover. So, the backup server must be available on the network at all times, and when the criteria for failover are met, it instantly takes over. It may even by synchronizing data in the background all the time.

Only one server is every active at any given time, but both need to be running. Some licenses allow for this. But, it's obviously much harder to enforce licensing limitations in this model. It almost has to be an honor system, unless the application is fully HA aware and can ensure only one is active at any time.

As usual. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352963)

Microsoft is introducing significant changes into its licensing program, faced with competition from Linux, as Reuters article suggests.
Yeah, some people really like to dream that their futile actions are making a difference. Maybe "M$" is actually being benevolent here? Instead, their actions are laughably being painted by the slashbots as the dying grasps of an evil corporation doomed to irrelevancy.

Get a clue. You fishes aren't turning the tide any more than IBM, BeOS, or any other operating system in the last 10 years has. It's simply impossible for hobbyisy projects to compete with an efficient enterprise like Microsoft who knows how to listen to their customers and deliver the level of innovation they demand. Actually getting a paycheck for your work makes all the difference in the world with regards to how you view quality assurance and documentation.

What a load of crap (nt) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353123)

NT I said!

Re:As usual. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353165)

Exactly. We should all just give up now and stop fighting. Oh wait, that's the only way MS can win!.

In other words, I don't think so, troll.

10 years?! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352966)

IT guy: Lets switch to linux, otherwise we're simply going to fall behind our competitors
MD: No way! We still have 3 years on our licensing with Microsoft, we can't just throw money away!

[in 3 years]
MD: Hey Microsoft have given us a new 40% discount for a 3,000 year licensing plan! We can't possibly move to Linux now!

Re:10 years?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353082)

MD: No way! We still have 3 years on our licensing with Microsoft, we can't just throw money away!

Yeah, throwing money away would be a real sin... it's much wiser to keep paying Microsoft for nothing. [slashdot.org]

Architectural Obsolescence? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9352997)

"NT 4 has reached its point of architectural obsolescence"

BULLSHIT!!!! IF NT4 is obsolete, so is XP.

The only think NT4 is missing is that FUCKING ACTIVATION BULLSHIT!

Re:Architectural Obsolescence? (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353081)

and a whole lot of other things...

Re:Architectural Obsolescence? (4, Informative)

Decaff (42676) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353109)

The only think NT4 is missing is ...

LDAP authentication support,
Built-in terminal services,
Plug-and-play,
USB,
User switching,
Compatibility modes,
System restore,
An eye-ruining GUI,
A dog that helps you find files.

Re:Architectural Obsolescence? (3, Interesting)

AcidPhish (785961) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353172)

The only thing all versions of windows are missing is multiuser support. I'm sure I don't run my CPU at 100% throttle, yet nobody else can use my machine without one of us having to go for a coffee break.

Multi-User or Multi-Settings?

Re:Architectural Obsolescence? (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353202)

Windows has the ability--you just have to buy a more expensive version to make usage of it. Rumors has it that xp SP2 might add permission for 2 logins. Remote Desktop is one of the best things about xp imho.

Wow, a really long support life cycle... (4, Informative)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353006)

IIRC, it used to be five years for most of Microsoft's Windows products.

In contrast, Linux's supposed #1 commercial distribution, Redhat? All official support was pulled after 16 months. I hope people can lobby to keep enterprise business away from Redhat.

Re:Wow, a really long support life cycle... (3, Informative)

Albanach (527650) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353145)

We moved from RedHat for that reason.

Nonetheless, their decision was a business one and a legitimate decision at that. Linux and Open Source in general have a development model of release early, release often. If a bug is spotted, it's generaly corrected by a new release, not a bug fix to an existing release.

If you don't like that model companies, RedHat included, are willing to backport patches to earlier releases. You can subscribe to such services for $$$.

Basically, Linux comes in two flavours, one for early adopters, happy to patch adn upgrade as necessary, the other is for those who want long term stability. The first one can be free as in beer, the second can too, but much more rarely. If you need the kind of support and stability offered by option two, you're probably willing to pay for it, and quite possibly willing to pay redhat for it.

Re:Wow, a really long support life cycle... (1)

MajorDick (735308) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353174)

Well sort of, the Red Hat enterprise has always had at least a 5 year lifecycle. I bough RHEL 3 for just this reason, I was sick of EOL upgrades that left me in a mess, like the RH 8 Upgrade, what a joke it never made it to production we downgraded to 7.3 till RHEL 3 was released.

Apples & Oranges (2, Informative)

RoLi (141856) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353192)

You are comparing apples & oranges here, when support for some Windows-version runs out, you are screwed, no more security updates - you certainly can't apply a service pack for WinXP to WinNT.

With any Linux distribution however, because of the modular structure, you are able to upgrade whatever is needed yourself - almost forever.

Of course the average Winlot will never acknowledge this fact...

No network - no update ? (5, Insightful)

e_AltF4 (247712) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353014)

... and is not present on the network
If you need your "free" backup sever after 18 months without any network connection (updates, security patches and application changes) and then attach it to the internet you might be not so happy with the results.

Sasser & Co would eat you alive before you could even say "Hell, where's the Windows Update Button ?" or "Why is this crashing ? We installed the fix for the application 6 months ago!".

Hopefully MS will allow network connections for updates. It would probably be cheaper to have a license ready instead of burning the "Update DVDs Du Jour" just in case you need it.

Just my 5 €-Cents

Re:No network - no update ? (4, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353166)

I can't see why they wouldn't allow that, not only would the system have to be able to pull updates, it has to be in sync with whatever system its replacing, unless you have a system thats just an OS not doing anything. Obviously you need to talk to your MS sales rep and get some clarification.

So, um (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353020)

What you're saying is that

1. Microsoft isn't going to make people play for licenses of Windows that they aren't using

2. Microsoft isn't going to force upgrades anymore, at least not exactly.

Gee, how altruistic of them.

Let me guess (2, Insightful)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353029)

"Microsoft Revamps Licensing Plans"

Such a headline always sounds like good news. Let me guess... This new Microsoft licensing plans will be good for customers, good for competition and especially good for free software including, but not limited to, GNU GPL, and there will be lots of positive feedback on Slashdot, am I right? Am I right? Please tell me I am! OK, I'll RTFA... Somehow I have a bad feeling, I don't know why... It must be that tin-foil hat and all that, I guess... *sigh*

Need XP Serials? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353050)

There is a webgenerator for legit windows XP serial numbers here! [kingsofchaos.com]

Is this the result of Linux or IBM? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353064)

How many think this is the result of IBM pushing linux aggressively, or the quality of linux digging into Microsoft's market? Or is this just Microsoft pleasing customers and has nothing to do with linux?

DRP (3, Insightful)

j3ll0 (777603) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353070)


At the very least, this legitimizes the DRP testing that regulated industries (ie Pharmaaceutical) are required to carry out annually.

In many cases these are full blown restoration of service off the corporate network.

It happens now, but at least it will hapen in compliance with licensing agreements.

Gotta love market pressure (4, Insightful)

PotatoHead (12771) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353071)

in action.

All of this really makes me happy. If I am forced to use Microsoft products, then I have a decent shot at a better deal because of the FS/OSS products I make most use of today.

It hardly gets better than that. Thanks to everyone who has worked hard to get us this far. For everyone else, myself included, please consider contributing in some fashion. You can write docs, test, pass the word along, purchase some software and get a nice box, etc...

OSS: You get more than you contribute in return. How cool is that!

One question (3, Interesting)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353077)

"Microsoft Revamps Licensing Plans"

Please tell me, "to revamp" is a verb from "revenge," isn't it? Why do I always have bad feelings when I read "Microsoft," "licensing," "competition" and "Linux" in the same sentence? I must be paranoid or something.

(By the way, wouldn't it make more sense if the link "as Reuters article suggests" actually pointed to the Reuters article [reuters.com] instead of the Yahoo link which suspiciously looks like pay-per-click partnership program URL?)

Re:One question (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353100)

By the way, wouldn't it make more sense if the link "as Reuters article suggests" actually pointed to the Reuters article instead of the Yahoo link which suspiciously looks like pay-per-click partnership program URL?)

Second that. Someone will get a big paycheck and exposure on Yahoo! TV tonight and Yahoo! Movies tickets for pointing to that referral Yahoo! News link. Last time I remember Yahoo! News paid $1.50 for each referred article reader.

Same old practice? (5, Insightful)

vector0319 (530769) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353086)

This article seems to remind me of the same thing M$ has been doing for years. They drop prices, work out licensing deals with organizations (ala University of Maryland), give away stuff, etc just to get their product in your hands, on your network, and essential to your computing life. M$ is not dumb. They have alot of smart people all working towards the same goal.

Also I don't think linux pressure has anything to do with it. I'm just sick of their licensing practices period and I think that attitude is what is changing things. Who wants to pay extra money to have a server sitting around doing nothing? Not me. That being said I would rather use linux for core systems whenever possible.

Anyway I think alot of the posts so far are good especially the one pertaining to the updates on an offline server.

Place your bets...place your bets (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353117)

With the number of recent stories about Microsoft changing their mind about something (the SP2 install story being the most recent), how long does everyone think it'll be before we see a retraction of this policy, with something along the lines of "Someone spoke out of turn again" being said?

Uh oh, the Redmond Mind Trick! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353119)

As usual, they make a big deal of changes that are complete bullshit. Like there were people who were thinking, "Gee, I wish I could build a redundant server in case we ever need it, but that would mean buying an extra license or violating our existing license. I better just hope nothing happens to our primary server."

These are not the licensing changes you're looking for, move along.

Get Some Priorties People!!! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353139)

Let me get this straight. The best President in recent history died yesterday and you people are talking about Microsoft revamps licensing plans?!?! My GOD people, get some priorities!

baby steps (2, Funny)

jdkane (588293) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353144)

Oh wow -- free licensing for computers that are turned off! I can't wait to load up that baby and turn off the computer to see how it runs.
Well, it's a step in the right direction anyways.
Bob Wiley: Baby step to four o'clock. Baby step to four o'clock [imdb.com] .

Good for disaster situations, but I'm sure a lot of people have already been using this "new" licensing scheme for a while now.

XP Concurrent sessions? (2, Interesting)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353156)

Any chance that we'll get the legal option to connect a thin client to an XP box without booting off the user on the console?

Can't get the backup server on a network? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9353162)

So this non-network connected server gets it's security and Windows updates from where and when?

Sounds like worm bait to me.... /Reboot
Sounds like worm bait to me.... /Reboot
Sounds like worm bait to me.... /Reboot
Sounds like worm bait to me.... /Reboot
Sounds like worm bait to me.... /Reboot

makes you wonder... (4, Interesting)

chrisopherpace (756918) | more than 10 years ago | (#9353212)

1.) Just how much exactly is Microsoft afraid of Linux? How much marketshare does Microsoft percieve Linux to take?
2.) How will Microsoft know if its plugged into the network? As well as the fact that a server w/o updates or recent data (yeah, I'm sure you could use removeable storage for that, but there goes the TCO), will be pretty much worthless. If it takes 8 hours to get recent data on it, and install the past 6 months worth of updates, how useful is it really? In addition, I don't like the idea that a server may be "calling home" to confirm that it is not in use. Sounds like a setup to me.
3.) With the longer product life, is Microsoft realising that people actually don't want to upgrade their OS every 5 years, especially for mission critical devices?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>