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!

Dual-core Processors Challenge Licensing Models

CowboyNeal posted more than 9 years ago | from the breaking-the-norm dept.

Businesses 176

ffub writes "Changes in hardware (such as dual-core processors and virtualisation) are making software licensing increasingly difficult for software firms. Companies still prefer the per-seat one-off license, while subscription models are favoured with software firms. But neither model reflects well the way software is used these days. The Economist looks at the situation and briefly touches on how Open Source could benefit from the muddle."

cancel ×

176 comments

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

Maybe (5, Insightful)

BHearsum (325814) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081061)

Maybe this will get rid of licensing models that are 'per cpu'. I've never understood the logic in charging per CPU, anyone care to explain? One computer, one license. Or even better, no licenses.

Re:Maybe (1)

ForumTroll (900233) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081082)

My feelings exactly, for the vast majority of software I really can't see why they would charge based on the number of CPUs used. Especially since dual core etc. is going to become so common in the next few years.

Re:Maybe (1)

BHearsum (325814) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081091)

To me, it's like charging the driver of a larger car more to renew his plates, than the owner of a compact car. It doesn't make any sense.

Re:Maybe (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081114)

To me, it's like charging the driver of a larger car more to renew his plates, than the owner of a compact car. It doesn't make any sense.

In many jurisdictions, to encourage the population to drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, they do exactly that. The US had a gas guzzler tax (don't know if they still have it) that was a one-time tax if your car didn't get 20 mpg or so.

Re:Maybe (0)

BHearsum (325814) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081129)

Rarr. You ruined my analogy.

Re:Maybe (2, Interesting)

byteherder (722785) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081140)

To me, it's like charging the driver of a larger car more to renew his plates, than the owner of a compact car. It doesn't make any sense.

Most states charge based on the value of the car. This makes no sense other than trying to stick it to the rich. If you have a expensive compact car, you could pay more than someone with a inexpensive but larger car.

Charging based on weight makes more sense. The heavier the vehicle the more damage it does to the roadway. Thus larger cars should pay more, they cause more maintance to have to be done to the roads.

Re:Maybe (1)

sakura the mc (795726) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081194)

shiet, in nevada i paid 120 dollars to renew my 86 honda accord for 2005. i paid only 200 to renew an 01 mitsubishi mirage in 2003. apparently it doesnt matter what kind of car you drive, they are going to fuck you regardless.

Re:Maybe (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081195)

Shhh

That comment was unamerican and liberal which hurt the pockets of the energy industry.

Re:Maybe (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081318)

Actually, basing it on weight would be also flawed a little. A car, according to law, can weight max 3,5 tonnes (here of course; if it's heavier then than it's classified differently (some would probably say it's SUV...), you need "better" license to drive it and...taxes are higher (quite the opposite tha with SUVs, huh?)). However for a road 3t makes almost no difference in comparison with 1,5. But a 15 or 25t truck...
So in case of vehicles used for cargo this makes sense...not for cars IMHO.

Here it's all based on size of the engine (and how old the car is, if you're buying it). Not sure if I could come up with something better...

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081853)

To me, it's like charging the driver of a larger car more to renew his plates, than the owner of a compact car. It doesn't make any sense.

Well guess what - its a common practice. In most states, it in fact does cost more to license a truck than it does a car. Also when you go through a toll booth, you often see different tolls depending on how many axles your vehicle as.

Similar to per CPU licensing, the reason that is done is not because having one more axle makes it harder to go through a toll booth; its just a scheme to make people charge more if their car or computer is more powerful. The reason that CPU count and axle count is chosen to gauge it is because its a very quantifiable scheme that really cannot be fudged one way or another.

The fact that dual core is becoming more and more popular is forcing software vendors to rethink their assumptions. Similarly for the sake of argument, if advancements in automobile technology caused cars to have more than two axles, toll road operators would have to rethink their pricing schemes as well.

Re:Maybe (5, Interesting)

inode_buddha (576844) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081104)

I would bet that the "per CPU" license model dates back to a time when CPU's were much more expensive; it could reasonably be assumed that there would be many users using one CPU. In other words, the business model is a couple of decades behind the technology.

Re:Maybe (2, Informative)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081215)

I think it was more to get around the fact you could use one 'licensed seat' to access your application, but have 100's of people route thru that single seat. So they 'lose' revenue.

This way they can stick you for 'expected load'.

Remember too that once upon a time you were charged for use of that cpu TIME, not just a flat charge for access to it.. ( actually some of the big iron licenses is still based on a per cycle fee.. )

Re:Maybe (2, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081220)

No, it's the other way around; if you have many users on one CPU, charging per CPU makes no sense (unless you charge a lot.) The idea, of course, is for the software company to maximize its revenue, so by charging per CPU for big multiprocessor systems built on cheap commodity processors (which, of course, describes the majority of server setups these days) they can make more money. The justification (other than "we want more money") is that roughly, they expect the number of CPU's to scale with the number of users.

Re:Maybe (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081579)

The problem is that multi-processor app scaling isn't easy, and the people to pay for that development should be the people that use multiple processors, hence, per-CPU licencing.

If multi-processor coding were easy, wouldn't there be a lot more such programs?

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081107)

I've never understood the logic in charging per CPU, anyone care to explain?

The logic is they can charge you hell for SMP machines because they know that SMP is mostly used in server bussiness, eg. the people that have money.

Re:Maybe (2, Interesting)

captaineo (87164) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081134)

Rendering software is usually licensed per-CPU. It's a decent model since the number of CPUs in a studio roughly indicates how much it can afford to pay for software :). Though it seems likely that "per CPU" will soon become "per box" or "per OS instance" to avoid splitting hairs over the expanding jungle of multiprocessing technologies.

Re:Maybe (1)

sykjoke (899173) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081141)

The more CPU's you have the more concurrent operations you can perform. With one CPU you can only ever process one task at a time, with Four CPU's you can process four tasks at one time, as if you had installed the software on four separate servers. Per CPU seems a lot more logical than per connection licensing.

Re:Maybe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081703)

The more CPU's you have the more concurrent operations you can perform. With one CPU you can only ever process one task at a time, with Four CPU's you can process four tasks at one time, as if you had installed the software on four separate servers. Per CPU seems a lot more logical than per connection licensing.

What if I have an older quad cpu box, and each cpu isn't that fast? I would pay more than someone with a single modern cpu, and their box would run more operations per second.

Re:Maybe (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081166)

Well easy, Profit! We should be thankful they don't change per transistor basis.

Re:Maybe (2, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081172)

I'd imagine that it's partly due to how much harder it is to write good multi-threaded code that scales well with increasing numbers of CPUs.

Yes, you're running the same code whether you have 1 CPU or 8, but if you do have more than one then you're actually benefiting from the additional effort (design, development, testing, etc). I imagine that the rationale is that it was harder and more expensive to write, why not charge more for it?

On top of that, the vast majority of multi-CPU users are business users, which tend to have more money and be prepared to spend it; you charge what the market will bear.

can't understand cause u never paid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081176)

if u never been in business u never paid. u sound like some worker who can't understand that it (usually) "takes money to make money". can i use ur car today....for free?

Re:can't understand cause u never paid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081309)

And you sound like you'll never get a job because no HR department can decipher your job application.

Re:can't understand cause u never paid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081385)

sorry man i have to pay people.......yesterday it was 20hr....hmmm?

let's have the ceo's of the companies make the complaints, not the highly paid workers.

how r workers affectd by the prices of liscenses? they benefit...guess u could be happy with wind95 and dbase old school.

i started my biz with dbase running on a commodore 64, then it was a file maker on a macintosh and now....none of ur business what my business is...

hint may use linux clusters some day!

hr...guess it's time i had a actual department!

Re:Maybe (4, Informative)

S.O.B. (136083) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081249)

Servers come in configurations of single up to 8 or even 16-way processors. Is it fair that a company with a server that has a single processor serving 100 users pays the same as a company that has a server with an 8-way processor serving 1000 users.

Per CPU licensing was a simple metric that allowed software companies to scale their pricing so that it was fair to both the entry level and high end customers.

As the article points out multi core processors are the processor companies' way of increasing performance without having to increase the clock speed and therefore keep temperatures down. Since software companies didn't care about the performance of a given processor, just how many you had, they shouldn't arbitrarily change the licensing model.

At the company I work for I know that because of the per CPU model we intentionally bought servers with fewer faster processors. Even though in most cases those servers were more expensive than machines with more processors the amount we saved on licensing costs more than made up for the additional hardware costs.

I suspect that in the end they'll end up with more of a performance based model similar to the MIP based licensing model on mainframes.

Re:Maybe (1)

karmatic (776420) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081511)

"Is it fair that a company with a server that has a single processor serving 100 users pays the same as a company that has a server with an 8-way processor serving 1000 users."

Yes. When buying something, the fact that someone got a better deal than you is not "unfair", it's simply business. You can always try to use that as leverage while purchasing, but that still doesn't change the fact that what you pay is between you and the seller.

Is it fair that there are people out there who paid less for the exact same model car you drive? Of course it is! I'd imagine some of them probably use it in about the same manner, too. That doesn't mean you were ripped off, it just means they managed to get a better deal.

Re:Maybe (1)

NuclearRampage (830297) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081629)

From that standpoint the licensing should be based on users, not the CPU. What if the multiple CPU's the 1000 person company were 4 1 GHz CPU's and the CPU the 100 person company had was a 4 GHz. They could just as easily spend less on a single CPU license and serve just as many users. In this case the smaller company ends up with a better deal just by having better hardware.

Re:Maybe (1)

Chris Snook (872473) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081694)

MIPS based licensing is feasible when the software vendor knows that there's one vendor delivering all the hardware components, and can use their authoritative performane data. When you've got interchangeable commodity components from several vendors, and these components are themselves assembled on the circuit boards from interchangeable commodity chips from several other vendors, it's a nightmare.

Re:Maybe (2, Insightful)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081898)

Per CPU licensing was a simple metric that allowed software companies to scale their pricing so that it was fair to both the entry level and high end customers.

Which works as long as the hardware companies scale their prices with # of CPUs. Historically, going from 2 CPUs to 4 often quadrupled the price of a server, and going to 8 quadrupled it again.

The issue is that Intel and AMD are currently breaking this model. There isn't a substantial price difference between today's dual core system and yesterday's single core. But yet some software costs have doubled.

It's only a year or so until even laptops have dual-core chips, and $3000 Xeon/Opteron servers have chips with 4 or more cores. The whole assumption that 4 CPUs = Big Expensive System is going to have to change.

Re:Maybe (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081261)

The problem with per-computer licensing is that it encourages a company to just create one massive 500-processor computer and use VMWare to run all their software on that one computer. Then a 50,000-employee company only needs 1 license for their entire company.

You can't just charge a fortunate for 1 license, since then nobody would ever start using your software, since most software tends to get piloted with small groups before working its way up to enterprise scale.

I always thought a concurrant-user model would work better, although for a database that gets murky.

Of course, the open source model is nice since you aren't charging a dime for anything and hence you don't need to fight out how to charge for your product... :)

Re:Maybe (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081503)

The problem with per-computer licensing is that it encourages a company to just create one massive 500-processor computer

They've not seen my penchant for circular references, clearly!

Re:Maybe (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081266)

define: "computer"?

Re:Maybe (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081866)

Person who computes ;-P

Re:Maybe (2, Insightful)

TheCaptain (17554) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081663)

Or even better, no licenses.

That is a really oversimplified and dangerous line of thought, IMHO. Even Linux and BSD have licenses...

It's better than power unit licences for a start (3, Interesting)

xixax (44677) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081800)

Until quite recently, our database software was on power unit licences. A formula number of CPUs x MHz x architecture is used to work out how much it will cost you to run the database. Why? Well they want people who are running huge databases to pay more, and size of server(s) is a pretty good measure, Amazon isn't going to run on a single CPU. That is, they charge as much as they think the customer can afford.

While an interesting question, how does this question manage to rate as a "insightful"?

Xix.

Re:Maybe (2, Insightful)

Spoing (152917) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081874)

Maybe this will get rid of licensing models that are 'per cpu'. I've never understood the logic in charging per CPU, anyone care to explain? One computer, one license. Or even better, no licenses.

Where do you draw the boarders between one 'computer' and another?

If the licence were based on a per-metal-box basis, some clever folks would buy systems that are really clusters but are contained in a single box. Good for them, though it causes problems if you are the seller and supporter of the sofware.

Per-CPU never made sense to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081068)

I could understand a performance based pricing model, but two CPUs which were slower than one really fast costing more in licensing fees never made sense anyway.

Re:Per-CPU never made sense to me (1)

ak3ldama (554026) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081217)

I could understand a performance based pricing model, but two CPUs which were slower than one really fast costing more in licensing fees never made sense anyway.
Right on.

Re:Per-CPU never made sense to me (1)

qodfathr (255387) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081349)

Agreed. However, market pressures pretty much demanded this. In the not so distant past, Oracle's database was licensed by 'power units' (or some other similar term). Basically, they had this huge multidimensional chart based upon OS, CPU type, CPU speed, etc. It resolved to the 'power' of the system, and you paid based upon that.

If your computer died and you had the gaul to replace it with a faster machine (for the very likely reason that the slower speed machine was no longer available for sale), Oracle expected you to fork over more money.

In the end, the licensing scheme became way too confusing and out of control, so Oracle backed down and went with a strict # of CPUs based model. But, as you have observed, this led to the odd situation where a slower, dual-processor machine could actually have a higher licensing fee than a faster, single processor machine.

Oracle now faces the same problem mith mutli-core chips. Originally, they went to a # of cores licensing model. But, people complained that a dual core, single CPU machine is not as fast as a dual processor machine running at the same CPU individual speed. Oracle's response? Each core is a .75 CPU, oh, and please round up. So an 11 core machine would be licensed as 11 * .75 = 8.25. Ceiling(8.25) = 9 CPUs. I guess you might as well add a 12th core, because it will be 'free'.

hm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081069)

good for oss. good.

N/T (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081090)

COWBOY NEAL IS A SHIT FUCK

EAT SHIT AND DIE

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted! Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Database Licensing and the Web (5, Interesting)

inmate (804874) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081119)

This won't be the first time that licensing has faced such a crises.

In the early days of the web, I worked on a web-based project which connected to a MS SQL-Server database. The licensing issue was very confusing since the information in the database would be made available to anyone who came to site (and we expected a few hundred regular users), but technically everything would be accessed by through only one account (the webserver!).

I called the local MS office and they confirmed that we only need one licence for this model.
Based on this information, we rewrote a major internal application to be entirely browser based - and then dropped all our seat licences bar one.

Needless to say, MS had a absolute fit!

About a year later we received an incredibly confusing document outlining license-requirements for internet and intranet applications.

Re:Database Licensing and the Web (4, Informative)

blowdart (31458) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081171)

There's actually a specific internet connection license for that sort of setup, however it's interesting to note that Microsoft have said, for licensing purposes, dual core CPUs count as a single cpu [microsoft.com] .

Compare to Oracle [theinquirer.net] ; if you buy a licence for a dual core machine, the second core is only counted as .75 of a CPU, as is each succeeding core. However Oracle rounds all numbers up, so .75 = one for licensing, and 1.75 = two, roughly the same cost as if you bought two licences. And so on. It's only a saving if you have 3 dual core cpus or more.

Re:Database Licensing and the Web (2, Interesting)

mgv (198488) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081373)

There's actually a specific internet connection license for that sort of setup, however it's interesting to note that Microsoft have said, for licensing purposes, dual core CPUs count as a single cpu.

Compare to Oracle; if you buy a licence for a dual core machine, the second core is only counted as .75 of a CPU, as is each succeeding core. However Oracle rounds all numbers up, so .75 = one for licensing, and 1.75 = two, roughly the same cost as if you bought two licences. And so on. It's only a saving if you have 3 dual core cpus or more.


Of course, microsoft used to allow you to have 4 cpu's for windows NT (this was back in the days when dual core stuff hadn't started).

Mostly, this is just about extorting as much money out of a paying customer as they can. If they charged a license per gigahertz of cpu speed, there would be an uproar when your software costs doubled when you upgraded your 1 GHz cpu to a 2GHz cpu.

When you look at it like this, you can see what a contrived concept that charging per core is.

Even if you argue that it takes more to write multithreaded code, that shouldn't make any difference between 2-4 cpu's. And in many cases the program utilisation might never even require that second core.

My 2c

Michael

Re:Database Licensing and the Web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081613)

That's interesting. When was this? I didn't even think MSSQL existed in the early 1990s. When I had to set up an IIS/MSSQL setup due to a software vendor's requirments, MS was pretty clear in their terms:

* If you know how many will connect, buy a seat for each.

* If it's web connected, or you can't estimate the maximum number of connections, buy a per-CPU license.

I guess you're the guy that started it all. ;o)

Article mentions virtual servers (5, Insightful)

putko (753330) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081127)

I had not thought about the problem of virtual servers.

E.g. suppose I have a big-ass mainframe that emulates a few PCs, just to run Excel now and then (for legacy reasons). Once a month, we reconfigure the mainframe just for a batch job, so that some of its resources are used to simulate 10 PCs.

How do you price that? A mainframe license? 10 separate PC licenses? What about the fact that I'm only doing it now and then, and not using it regularly (8-10 hours a day)?

I just wish the article had used the term "price discrimination" -- that really explains it all.

Q: How much does it cost?
A: "How much ya got?"

Re:Article mentions virtual servers (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081204)

Many in the software industry including Microsoft would like a per user + [per cpu license.

They do this shit all the time in negotations with large firms. If two people use one machine then you need to pay for Excel twice.

Re:Article mentions virtual servers (1)

Poltras (680608) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081275)

Actually, if you don't use your laptop at the same time you use your desktop (or you're not at work at the same time you're at home, etc), you don't need to have 2 licenses for using software from Microsoft.

Some times ago, we asked Microsoft if a big guy from the company could share an Office license with his daughter, and they just said that "as long as they both didn't use it at the same time".

Otherwise, what would be the use of installing the shortcuts in "common/start menu" instead of the installing users?

Re:Article mentions virtual servers (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081593)

I know.

Personally I think its bullshit. This crap is what got me into Linux in 98.

The problem is we no longer own our machines if Windows is required and MS comes in and dictates hwo we use their software.

Still years ago we had a blanket license that covered everything but the MS salesmen still convinced teh CIO to purchase per user + per cpu licensing just to make sure because they did not want to scare poor old MS from doing an audit.

Then another MS salesmen/consultant would say something different about not needing licenses (I think he was saying this to make his project look cheaper) but still. God?

Good thing I am not in IT anymare.

Re:Article mentions virtual servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081815)

If two people use one machine then you need to pay for Excel twice.

Not true. There are some volume license from microsoft that work like that, but not all.

Re:Article mentions virtual servers (1)

spazimodo (97579) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081398)

Working with VMWare ESX, I've found that most vendors charge per physical CPU.

This works out pretty well if you have high enough VM density to take advantage of it (>n VCPUs where n is the number of physical CPUs in the box.)

It kind of sucks when you just have a single instance of a server which won't be hit very hard (perfect case for slapping in a VM) and you would have to buy a 4 CPU license if you virtualized it.

Re:Article mentions virtual servers (1)

weave (48069) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081540)

I have a dual-processor dual-core VMWare ESX server that doesn't emulate SMP so to each host it looks like a single processor. So I figure if I have 8 hosts running on that ESX server, each averages out to half a CPU so Oracle and others should only charge me half price since I'm only using half a processor Right?!

Mainframes Solved the Problem Already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081428)

I swear, half the Slashdot stories now are about "new" IT problems that mainframes solved years or decades ago. More people really need to check out how cheap and capable IBM's large servers are now.

Any proper server -- and I guess there are no proper servers besides IBM zSeries -- measure and track what the running software is up to. Otherwise you have security, performance, workload management, and other problems anyway. In the zSeries world that gets translated to MSUs ("Millions of Service Units") via SMF ("Service Management Framework") records. MSUs are a common "horsepower" denominator that has nothing to do with how many chips are inside the server. IBM and most other software vendors let you buy software based on peak MSUs (peak four hour rolling average each month). There's usually a minimum -- 3 MSUs is popular -- so that you don't just lard up your machine with unused software. But otherwise you pay for what you use per software package. (IBM calls that VWLC: Variable Workload License Charge.)

If your sales went up, and you're processing lots of new orders, you pay a little more. If you're a small company and you've hit hard times, you pay less. It generally works. It also has a side benefit of encouraging vendors and developers not to create bloatware. (Efficient and thus scalable code is rewarded.)

Just as one data point, I recently compared the price of WebSphere Business Integration Message Broker for z/OS and for Windows. The z/OS version at 3 MSUs -- all we needed -- was 60% less expensive than a single Windows CPU. And we would have needed at least two Windows CPUs and more like three (redundant production and test).

And you've got open source, too. (zSeries is the biggest and baddest Linux server.) Obviously Linux is quite outside the MSU regime. Commercial Linux software is typically charged by the processor (only if used to run the software), and virtualization (z/VM and LPARs) has absolutely no impact on pricing. IBM doesn't worry about whether you move their commercial software from, say, X86 to zSeries: Linux is Linux for software licensing. This is very cool.

Re:Mainframes Solved the Problem Already (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081819)

Yeah, Mainframes "solved" this problem by charging people X or more the licensing price of Unix or Windows platforms. All of this "MUS" and "LC" nonsense is just basically a license for IBM to remove money from your bank account.

Which is not to say that mainframes are not appropriate for certain applications, only that it is ridiculous to pretend that you can cost-justify the things on licensing grounds.

WebSphere Business Integration Message Broker for z/OS and for Windows. The z/OS version at 3 MSUs -- all we needed -- was 60% less expensive than a single Windows CPU.

Excluding all of the other ongoing maintenance fees for the mainframe, of course. I wouldn't be suprised if a $20K server with W2003 license was cheaper than one month of keeping the 'frame running.

Re:Mainframes Solved the Problem Already (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081835)

Looks like I hosed my post somehow. That's supposed to be "10x", not "X", and "VWLC" instead of "LC".

schmucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081130)

comes a time when in business u get rid of the cheap customers and keep the ones that can pay. ur product is good or great and ur service is just the same.....who wants the schmucks who want cheap cheap but want more more.

Re:schmucks (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081295)

Plase learn to type whole words. thanks.

per box/machine (1)

justforaday (560408) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081138)

I've always thought that per box/machine licensing made the most sense. Although, the concurrent user model works well in environments where users float between machines (school computer labs, huge offices, etc). Hence different licensing plans for different scenarios. The whole one license per core thing seems somewhat outdated to my feeble mind...

Re:per box/machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081732)

It's one of the reasons that puts commercial software at a disadvantage. Microsoft had the right idea: Work with the licensing terms up-front, and don't worry about validation. That was, of course, until the advent of Product Activation in Office 2000. Most of these things are moronic, and add complexity needlessly. It raises the price of the software because of the infrastructure and programmers needed to maintain it, and it costs you money because your in-house IT have to wrangle with it.

I can remember the initial shipping versions of Netware 5, where they put licensing objects into NDS so they could be pooled. Oops, the DS sync didn't work, and now your whole office have to sit on their hands while the technicians fix the problem, and your company's money goes down the toilet.

Now everyone's trying to get on the gravy train, and there are more PA schemes than Windows security patches, and the licensing "servers" only run on Windows. It's a stupid way to do business, and I wish companies would wise up and start dictating their terms of sale. Per-CPU, per-box, per-seat, per-person - all asinine.

The only licensing scheme that makes any sense is: One box or per-organization. License it for a single box and one user at a time, I don't care if it's got 87 processors and is used by the whole state of California, or buy it for a whole building/organization based on an estimated number of users. And screw the million different license servers. If the developers want that model, they should foot the bill for the hardware and rent it out as a service to companies, instead of making the end-user manage it and support it while they accidentally spill their champagne while swimming in a tub full of money.

additional work put in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081145)

Most of the current software do not optimally utilize the multiple cores.

Sure, there is a default performance gain based on the OS itself, but its nowhere near what it can be. Lots of work has to be done for the softwares to fully take advantage of the multiple cores and in such cases you do see a massive improvement in turn around time.

Anyway, even though its a per cpu/core licence , its mostly incremental licensing and not x times per core.

Re:additional work put in (1)

Wonko (15033) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081329)

Most of the current software do not optimally utilize the multiple cores.

Can you name one piece of software that is licensed per processor/core that is unable to take nearly full advantage of however many processors you have in a machine? I sure can't.

Sure, there is a default performance gain based on the OS itself, but its nowhere near what it can be. Lots of work has to be done for the softwares to fully take advantage of the multiple cores and in such cases you do see a massive improvement in turn around time.

There is plenty of software running in datacenters all over the world that can take full advantage of as many processors as you can put in a box. When you posted your comment you hit a web server running Apache. Apache can spawn as many processes as needed to take advantage of more processors.

As for this licensing issue... It really doesn't matter much to me anyway. I don't personally use much closed source software. Anytime I have used expensive software, it sure wasn't on my dime :p.

We've heard this before... (4, Interesting)

Zweideutig (900045) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081155)

I know we have heard about this quite awhile ago on Slashdot, when Oracle wanted to consider a dual core CPU two processors [slashdot.org] I think companies like Oracle will be forced to think of dual core CPUs as simply one CPU that handles multiple threads well, especially with dual core CPUs not only coming from the Intel side, but also from IBM [slashdot.org] If I remember correctly Oracle found it difficult to determine the difference between dualcore and two CPUs. In the end, everyone will buy dual core, for the same reason everyone buys LCD monitors (it is seen as better, even if maybe it isn't.) Software companies will be forced to bend, hardware companies won't have to, because consumers are not going to put up with paying twice as much for what appears (on the outside) as one CPU. Should I be charged twice the parking fee because my 2001 Excursion has twice as many cylinders as the car beside it? I don't think so.

Re:We've heard this before... (1)

linj (891019) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081216)

Well, apparently, Oracle has changed (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5788788.html [zdnet.com] ).

Still, charging 1.5x the price for each piece of software run on dual-core boxes (or more) is really evil.

Re:We've heard this before... (1)

Jonny_eh (765306) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081281)

How are LCDs NOT better than CRTs?

They both have their advantages and disadvantages, but that does not mean that LCDs are not better for some people (or most).

LCDs are lighter to carry (good for LAN parties), use less desk space (good for saving space), offer a totally different way of viewing images (the image you see is not scanned to the screen 72 times a second), some people can't stand CRTs. And newer LCDs have a very high response time, so they're good for gaming. Plus, they use less power.

Am I missing something? (BTW, I'm writing this on a CRT ;)

I also think that people will buy dual-cores eventually because eventually they will be utilized properly and their favourite apps + games will require (or benefit) them.

Will buying the latest video card benefit you more than a mid-range card NOW? Probably not, but down the road when games use the fancier shaders, its' value will show. These technologies need to be released BEFORE they're taken advantage of, since this isn't a perfect world.

Lots of people have Athlon 64's, yet use Windows XP (which is 32-bit). But down the road, a 64-bit Windows may come out, or they may decide to switch to Linux.

Re:We've heard this before... (1)

Zweideutig (900045) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081344)

I think people will buy dual core for the same reason they bought 64-bit CPUs and ran Windows (32-bit) on them. The G5 Macs are still running mostly 32-bit software (except in some places), yet use a 64-bit CPU. Dual core may not be too useful if you aren't running many applications simeltaneously, and your applications do not take advantage of multithreading (as a programmer, I make sure to use pthread whenever it is at least somewhat beneficial to my application, which usually is anything that is not very simple.) Anyway, about the CRTs and LCDs. I am too using a CRT monitor. In fact, out of my eight machines I am running right now, three have CRTs and only two have LCDs (laptops, and everything else is router and servers, which are headless *BSD machines.) I think you got a little off whhat I mean about LCDs vs. CRTs. Regardless to which is truely superior (which depends on who you are, I like CRTs because I don't have to worry about the dead pixels and LCD inverter problems that have forced me to take my laptops apart many times for this problem. I like LCDs in laptops because I wouldn't want to drag around a Compaq portable with a CRT in it around. I can't tell the difference between the image of an LCD or a CRT to be honest, but I have "slow" eyes and some colour blindness.) Alot of people will buy LCD displays just because of the inherent "cool" feeling about having one, just like many will buy 64-bit dual core machines and run non-multithreaded 32-bit games. Disclaimer: I am not a gamer. Slashdot is enough of a time spender for me. ;)

Re:We've heard this before... (2, Insightful)

Snocone (158524) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081387)

Am I missing something?

Yeah, a fair bit actually. If you're doing professional press work, digital photography, or video, you need the best true-to-life colour fidelity achievable on your monitor, and that means (very expensive) CRT, not LCD.

Also, I don't think any LCDs can match the pixel response time of CRTs, so the hardcore FPS gamer might notice a difference enough to prefer a CRT. My idea of a good game is more along Nethack lines, so I wouldn't personally know.

Re:We've heard this before... (1)

kesuki (321456) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081351)

LCDs have advantages over CRTs... they also have disadvantages.. the 'advantages' are percieved tob e greater than the disadvantages. the only difference, is that dual cores only real 'disadvantage' compared to single core is that by having dual cores you can't have as many transistors in each core, as compared to an identical silicon die size single core design. but it's difficult to design a single core processor that effeciently uses all it's transistors. especially as transistors get smaller, and you can keep packing more on the core. so they've gone to 'dual core' designs, and leave part of the hard work in the hands of the programmers. but technically, modern operating systems have all become so complicated, that Everyone benfits from dual core designs. but probablly itr would be better if one core was a 'main' core, and there was a 'secondary' core, that was much smaller/slower, and was just there to increase the effieciency at executing code..

no-one is really trying to do that, because it's vastly easier to simply make two identical cores. and for most users identical speed cores is going to work great... even though most won't utilize both cores fully ever. asymetric dual core technology is probabbly the optimal solution, but no one wants to build it. why whould you want to put as small a say 500 mhz core as you can as a co-prosessor to a 4ghz core ;) even if it's the most efficient use of silicon for optimal performance... it doesn't sell itself... it's not glitzy and people don't understand why the second core is only 500 mhz. it's because the second core only Needs to be that fast, to become fully utilized why allowing the 4ghz core to be fully utilized by single processor intensive applications ;)

Re:We've heard this before... (1)

Evro (18923) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081376)

Should I be charged twice the parking fee because my 2001 Excursion has twice as many cylinders as the car beside it?

Just as a point of interest, I have seen places that charge per-axle.

Re:We've heard this before... (1)

slazar (527381) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081477)

Should I be charged twice the parking fee because my 2001 Excursion has twice as many cylinders as the car beside it?

yes because your fat ass SUV needs some serious downsizing.

Re:We've heard this before... (1)

Zweideutig (900045) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081598)

I disagree. My Ford Excursion's size is proportionate to the 6.8 litre v10 310 HP engine. It doesn't lag too bad on hills, and I don't have too much trouble going through the Dunkin' Donuts drive through or Burger King. I try to get enough food so that I only have to go to Burger King and twice, and I make the twelve donuts last the whole day. That way I don't have to worry about trying to manuever through the drive through too much.

Re:We've heard this before... (2, Funny)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081774)

  1. Yes, you should be charged twice as much to park your SUV, because it takes up twice as much space as a normal car!
  2. Yes, your fat-ass SUV does need some serious downsizing, because although its size is proportionate to its engine, the engine is too damn big too.
  3. I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not about the Dunkin' Donuts and Burger King thing, but given that you don't appear to be joking about the Excursion I suspect you might not be. If that's the case, you should also feel sad about what a fat-ass you are.
Have a nice day.

CPU Licensing?? (2, Interesting)

lizdog (650189) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081163)

Are we getting to a point where the term CPU loses its relevance? In gaming, is the power of monitor card selected as important than the speed of the CPU? Does the disk array attached to the database have more impact on speed than CPU? Should these also be factors in license models?

Re:CPU Licensing?? (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081317)

In gaming... but gaming is a very niche market. This is talking about enterprise computing, where processors are still being pushed very hard. I don't think those are really factors because there are still many things you just throw more and more CPU's at to get 'em done.

Re:CPU Licensing?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081450)

It might not be the center of the universe, but calling gaming a niche market is plain wrong.

Gaming has moved from the PS/2 to the PS2 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081727)

calling gaming a niche market is plain wrong.

Calling 3D Windows gaming a niche market isn't nearly as wrong. Most 3D video games other than perhaps first-person shooters are played on PlayStation 2, GameCube, and Xbox.

At least MS Got it right... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081210)

Microsoft per cpu licenses are considered per socket, not per core. Makes getting a single dual-core cpu preferable to dual single-core cpus.

... yeah, cause they had to (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081289)

Lets make no mistake about this, MS didn't do this because of some enlightened generosity, they did it because Linux is kicking their teeth in over the server space.

Funny how open source models aren't having any of these licensing "problems". To Linux unrestricted copying on the internet and huge multicore systems are a benefit, to proprietary vendors they are a threat ... now which side do we think is going to win out over the long term here?

not just linux! (1)

ecalkin (468811) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081363)

novell dropped server licenses. you pay per user, get your first server license in the box that the user license came in and download extra server licenses for free.

5 users and one server costs (software wise) the same as 5 users and 20 servers!

eric

Re:At least MS Got it right... (1)

JimmehAH (817552) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081365)

Also XP (Professional) and 2000 (too young to remember how it was for NT4) allow you to use up to two processors anyway (don't know if they're multicore aware).

Maybe they'll limit the number of cores in Longhorn instead of sockets (especially with this talk of 4 core or more processors).

Robber Barons (5, Insightful)

forq (133285) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081212)

The software industry has gotten away with robbery for too long. Year over year they astound us with their skyrocketing costs, and as computing complexity goes up, they find more and more excuses to not deliver the support you're paying for. "We cannot support you because of X." X being any reason they can find. Upgrades, new hardware they don't have in their support matrix, virtualization. Whatever the reason, the very first order of business for those support folks when you call for help is to find a reason to not support you. And now they want more money. To pay the outsourced first level support folks that know all about how to determine if you're unsupportable, and nothing about how to support the products.

Ridiculous.

Re:Robber Barons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081301)

Not all companies behave this way. The one that I currently work for supports the client regardless of the version. We have a few clients that are still using DOS versions of our products. Granted if they find a bug or the like we would not go back and modify that code. In terms of answering the phone and trying to help them with issues using the software we currently continue that as long as they are willing to pay for support.

I agree with you some companies are as you describe, maybe even many, but at least not all.

Re:Robber Barons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081327)

This is the price one pays for
less choice in the marketplace.

If you don't like the policies of
your software vendor then go to someone
else.

Oh? You can't because they monopolize
a sector? Write your politicians then!

BTW if MySQL had properly handled
BLOB fields through ADO then I would not
have had to use the blasted SQL Server in
the first place! But now Microsoft
says licenses are charged by authentication
in Windows 2000 so since I only authenticate
one user for the wbe...there you go....

Hate SQL Server? Write something bare
bones equivalent and charge less!!

Open Source becoming the standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081244)

The licensing confusion has already helped open source to become the standard. Our entire company has moved to Linux and replaced all software packages by open source ones including the replacement of Microsoft Word with Openoffice. We have already saved huge amounts in licensing fees and most of our partners and suppliers are also moving to Linux which means even more cost savings and opens the road for better integration.

per seat licence (2, Funny)

vally_the_poo (811216) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081263)

> Companies still prefer the per-seat one-off license

I understand now why they don't have any seat at my new work: everybody just sit on the floor, in a hippie style...

duh !

Re:per seat licence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081847)

> Companies still prefer the per-seat one-off license
I'm going to address this point in a different way. Companies *do not* prefer per-seat licensing, it's just that Microsoft's practices *force* them to choose it or get *bilked*. It's ridiculous that anyone should have to explain this at this time, but the parent should get a clue: Microsoft forces big-league OEMs to pre-buy licenses. Microsoft also penalizes vendors that sell new PCs without Windows installed, or even dual-boot systems.

So why does that matter? Try getting both a) new systems without an OS installed, and b) with the full refund for the cost of the OEM license. Even buying in lots of a couple hundred, I've never managed to do both. What does this mean? If you buy a corporate volume license, you're paying twice for Windows, and you can't legally use the "spare" licenses because the EULA doesn't allow it.

If your company is stupid enough insist on volume licensing to save on expensive human labor, guess what the OEM says about your images? "We don't support it." In exchange for the privilege of being bullied into buying OEM licenses up front, OEMs also have to support Windows, and they'll get out from under that obligation any way possible.

How about per cycle? (3, Interesting)

wandazulu (265281) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081264)

I'm surprised no one is talking about this, as it seems it was all the rage back-in-the-day (and I believe still going today): charge by the cycle for the app.

Case in point: I worked with IBM's MQSeries product as a link between a mainframe and a webserver. The MQSeries license for NT was something like a flat $6000. On the mainframe, however, it was some ungodly amount for the tapes, then they charged a per-cycle fee *and* a monthly maintenance contract.

As part of load testing, I wrote a program that would spit the complete works of shakespeare back and forth, over and over, to the mainframe and back using multiple threads. Two weeks of testing cost the company an extra $12,000 because of the cycles expended.

I noticed too that starting with SQL Server 7.0 that the explain plan feature can also show the number of cycles spent on a particular step. I would think Microsoft, with that info, could, if they wanted, go to a similar model with SQL Server if they so chose (and wanted to effectively kill the product).

And now that I think about it, my Unix account back in the early 90s had a cost associated with it too...I was allotted something like $1000 worth of what I assume was cpu time, and sure enough, enough attempts to get Nethack to compile and I was back in the office begging for more "money".

Ah, the good old days. I think.

Dual processor computers exist for years (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081279)

Amazing that this is turned into a problem. I've dual processor Macs for years. On the other hand, given the pricing of terrible (buggy and user-unfriendly) software like Adobe Acrobat standard and MS Office, their developers seem to have implemented double pricing as standard, even for single processor machines like laptops.

Bert

Re:Dual processor computers exist for years (0, Offtopic)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081618)

Amazing that this is turned into a problem. I've dual processor Macs for years.

Dual cores does not equal dual processors. If you had dual processors either your software had a dual+ licence, or if it knew it was restricted to a single processor, it would stick to that.

The tradeoff in terms of hardware and licence cost between dual CPUs and (faster) single CPUs was simple (infact there was little difference per-chip performance wise between them). There was also a good level of seperation between parallel and serial performance: with a reasonably wide physical space between the dual chips, tasks that could take advantage of dual cores were those with the most parallel nature, tasks that were highly serial couldn't get much uplift in performance.

Dual/multi cores is different in the sense per-CPU performance is faster for multi-core CPUs than single core CPUs, no matter what sort of task it is - CPUs with a single core simple can't beat multi-cores even on the most non-parallel type task. Dual core doesn't mean having 2x the throughput of a single core processor of the (otherwise) same spec, however: as some serials of instructions cannot be reduced to parallel, their performance will be 1-2 times a single CPU, probably in the upper quarter of this. As more cores are added the potential for parallelism reduces, and multi-cores increasingly underperform the sum of cingle core performance.

Now, this poses an interesting dilemma. Previously companies could add ever faster CPUs and (probably) get their software running faster and faster at no additional software cost. With dual+ core CPUs they're instantly doubling+ their licencing costs, while not getting a linear uplift in performance, and having previously expected this performance at no software cost. That's why they're getting upset.

The end result? My crystal ball suggests there will be a fixed cost aspect to software, perhaps as a scalar 0-1 times the number of cores on a CPU, accompanies by a per-CPU cycle charge over a hurdle rate.

I could talk for hours about parallelism vs. serialism, I hope the above breakdown wasn't too simplictic.

Re:Dual processor computers exist for years (1)

qzulla (600807) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081719)

Dual cores does not equal dual processors. If you had dual processors either your software had a dual+ licence, or if it knew it was restricted to a single processor, it would stick to that.

What if the OS does the slicing and the app never sees beyond this?

q

Prove you have a single-package dual-core system (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081749)

What if the OS does the slicing [of a process's threads across cores of CPUs] and the app never sees beyond this?

Then you're charged extra for the version of the application that supports operating systems that lack a Slicing Reflection API.

IBMs BlueGene runs Linux (1)

sandmaninator (884661) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081294)


Licensing an OS on a per CPU basis would have made BlueGene prohibitively expensive.
So it runs Linux.

Those costs are crazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081315)

It's funny reading all of this from overseas here in in the Far East. Whenever anyone over here needs software (of whatever complexity) it usually a matter of going to the local market and spending a couple of bucks, or for, the bigger jobs, paying a little more to someone who knows someone if simply buying them a few beers after work won't do.

As for technical support, there are legions of hungry types who will keep your stuff working without your having to deal with the mothership at all.

It is simply unimaginable to pay those huge sums people in America have to pay for software, DVDS or any of that. Overhere, Windows is as free as Linux! Those complex licensing schemes are like something an angry maniac babbles in his cell.

When Oracle or Microsoft gives the US State Department an anal probe or two, the local cops rouse themselves from the whorehouses, languidly wander through the market and seize the stock of the vendors who aren't up on their bribes (which they then sell). Once those fellows have paid up, thy're back in business soon enough (usually the next day.)

Per CPU licensing makes no sense anyway.. (4, Interesting)

wfberg (24378) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081395)

Per CPU licensing makes no sense anyway. It gives no indication how heavily an application is used, or how important it is to a business. For databases, it would make more sense to have a license for X thousand transactions, or Y amount of data. After all, databases are used for doing transactions and storing data. (Don't let Oracle get wind of this idea though, I've got an Oracle database that's more than 1GB in size but compresses down to 30MB! This pricing model will be the ideal excuse for them to take up even more disk space..)

The reason licenses are tied to hardware or to seats is probably because it's easy to justify these as a "cost of doing business" to suits. While projects usually have the greatest difficulty getting an OK for money to go towards programmers, expensive hardware is purchased willy-nilly, on the basis of "well, now we've got this application, we need to run it, or else the money we spent on programming it is wasted!". So tying your database license to CPUs makes more of an afterthought. (Just like performance, scaleability and actual volumes are an afterthought).

The same goes for seats; you just HAVE to license one copy of Microsoft Office or an OS or a database for every employee, otherwise you're paying (some) employees for basically standing around! Then, to recover costs, you make sure they have very little access to things like notepads, pens, or copying machines, since those dimes add up, don't you know?

Call me a cynical bastard if you will..

Re:Per CPU licensing makes no sense anyway.. (1)

e4tmyl33t (900294) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081468)

I noticed this as well, I work as a Best Buy computer sales drone (beep beep) and I constantly hear people whining and complaining about how they just bought Office or they just bought antivirus software and now they have to buy another one for their new machine... I just wish I could pass out open-source disks or free software disks at work without getting fired...i'd be handing out openoffice and avg/avast AV programs left and right

Re:Per CPU licensing makes no sense anyway.. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081767)

I just wish I could pass out open-source disks or free software disks at work without getting fired

Does any of the Windows free software distributions (such as TheOpenCD) carry a UPC bar code? If so, talk to your boss's boss's boss (et cetera) to get that SKU added to Best Buy's product line.

licensing = overhead (3, Interesting)

bromoseltzer (23292) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081405)

In my experience in academic computing support, one of the biggest headaches is license management on Windows and Macs. We tend to have lots of different software packages installed in ad-hoc seats or small networks. Each one may want a dongle or a dedicated server environment. Each one has different contractual terms about student vs faculty vs research use. Etc.

All this, as I see it, is a pure waste of scarce resources. It is somewhat alleviated by sitewide licensing of a few products, but even these are not easy to administer. The whole scene is like the U.S. medical or tax system -- value is being delivered, but the administrative overhead is huge. All the costs of compliance are passed on to the end users and institutions.

What a difference with Linux and OSS! Easy licensing is a big plus and it's not well enough appreciated.

License by transaction rate (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#13081515)

License by the maximum number of transactions per second that the database can perform. This can be enforced by the database. That pretty much covers everything and you don't have to worry about number of cpu's, number of users, number of accounts, etc... Move the database to a faster machine with more cpu's? No problem as no license change is required. But if you want to increase the rate from the old maximum to the maximum rate the new machine can handle, then you will need upgrade the license.

This is so obvious given that databases are benchmarked in transactions per second, one has to wonder if something else is at work. Most likely just simple greed.

per-thread (3, Insightful)

rhythmx (744978) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081567)

Why don't the software companies license by something that they can control? A "number of threads" model would be more fair. Or at least, the license can't assume that all the hardware is there for it to use and profit from.

If I had an 8 processor server running an existing application that I also wanted a low-end DB server on, I could just buy a single thread license instead of an 8 cpu one. Later, if the DB server couldn't handle the load, I could simply upgrade it to a 2 or 3 thread server.

Adapt or die (1)

Racal Vadic (744826) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081587)

Yeah, the RIAA is pretty pissed about what's happening to their traditional business model too. Look for more of that in the future.

Didn't MS say something about dual-core licensing? (1)

cecil36 (104730) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081877)

I remember reading on /. a while back that MS decided that it would treat a dual-core processor as a single processor in licensing its software on a per-processor basis. I thought with MS pretty much dictating what goes in IT, all other vendors would follow suit.

One license per-disc and shut the hell up ? (3, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 9 years ago | (#13081894)

I love capitalism. No really, I love watching people test just how hard they can screw each other in the ass for money without getting shot. Here's how I see it:

Company ABC invests X money into developing product. They estimate sales of Y quantity. Divide X by Y to get a per-item cost, mark it up for profit and a support allowance, then sell it.

The fact that I might run their software on multiple CPU's, or that it might be accessed by Terminal Server, doesn't change a single thing for the developer. They don't need to work harder, they don't lose sleep at night, their kids won't end up on Springer. It doesn't matter whether I use it to index my MP3 files, or run a Fortune-500 business with it. They did their work, and they get paid for that work. What happens afterward is not their problem, and more importantly none of their goddamned business.

When people learn to take just compensation for their efforts, and give up the "fight" for riches, we'll wonder how we ever survived through capitalism. There is a set amount of monetary value in the world, the more you have, the less someone else has, and the more that person is likely to do nasty things to make up for the loss. So why don't you just be happy to eat every day and give me a goddamned break with your license gouging.
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>