Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 165
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Qgyen View Post
    I emailed Ingram Micro Monday morning for confirmation as to whether mail and DNS servers are outsourced. They promptly forwarded to MS Licensing, though no word since. In the future, I'll likely move to Linux-based DNS and email. This will likely be a huge killer for new customers of SmarterMail, Simple DNS, DotNetPanel, or other small ISVs.
    According to our SPLA partner who passed along Microsoft's response, email servers for-sure are considered outsourced because the software running on them is licensed from a 3rd party, and not our intellectual property.

    Has Ingram provided a different interpretation?

    I'm still amazed that after turning a corner and doing something smart for a change (especially as relates to virtual machines under Datacenter edition), Microsoft reversed itself and really stuck it to hosting providers with this idiotic "outsourcer" definition.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    353
    I have a meeting with a licensing specialist tomorrow. So far, Ingram is basically saying the same thing. However I was more asking them if they have feedback channels to MS since I wanted to send me feedback regarding the change.

    They maybe wanted to do a call because I said I've already changed 4 CPUs on new systems that would have been classified as outsourced over to linux.
    Ken Robertson | Linked Labs | linkedlabs.com

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Qgyen View Post
    They maybe wanted to do a call because I said I've already changed 4 CPUs on new systems that would have been classified as outsourced over to linux.
    Fortunately were using Datacenter edition long before this "outsourcer" nonsense hit the fan, and can continue using the same SKUs. But who knows how long that will last.

    As a direct result of Microsoft's new "outsourcer" policies, I have been re-considering my stance on Linux. We have no choice on servers running Windows apps, but web and email servers are fair game. I started this career in the early 80s when there was no such thing as Windows (or even Linux for that matter).

    My *NIX skills are rusty, but there is now a financial incentive to become proficient in the *NIX universe again. From $50/mo per CPU, to $250/mo per CPU. Multiplied by many machines. Definitely a financial incentive.
    Last edited by Sekweta; 09-21-2009 at 07:44 PM.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    353
    Had my chat with a "Microsoft Licensing Specialist III" at Ingram and had a few things cleared up.

    According to her, DNS would be non-outsourced since it isn't used directly by my customers, it is used indirectly. I was mainly asking about secondary DNS servers, since I *had* my master DNS on the same box as the control panel, which I know is outsourced. Since data is replicated to the secondary ones, my customers don't use them directly.

    They did agree that mail servers are outsourced.

    One thing that was cleared up was that I thought I couldn't have any additional usage of the old SKUs, however they said I could until my agreement renews. I though if I had 6 CPUs using the SKU, I could only file up to 6 of the old SKUs after the change and couldn't go above. She said I can still have additional usage on the old SKUs up until 3 yrs after my agreement date, when it renews. Only partially helps though.

    I'll still likely move to a linux-based email server though. Costs will eventually go up 5x, just not now like I was thinking. I had already moved DNS over to linux and migrated users to it, and will continue to use that.

    I was asking what the motivation was for these changes ($$?). They were saying to encourage more hosters to join, make the licensing clearer (I wasn't too confused on anonymous vs authenticated), to "win the web" (as they put it) and keep people from Linux alternatives. Sounds more like the complete opposite of all that to me though. Likely just repeating the MS marketing/propaganda.
    Ken Robertson | Linked Labs | linkedlabs.com

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    3,302
    My guess is that they will ultimately move away from this decision. Beyond that, typically folks who are existing SPLA, continue to have old SKUs available to them even once they renew. For example, there was a whole brouhaha related to Windows 2008 Std / Enterprise unauthenticated (these types of licenses were not going to be available). However, my recollection is that anyone who had existing SPLA could continue to use Std / Enterprise unauthenticated for Windows 2008, and eventually they reversed course on this decision entirely.
    Jay Sudowski // Handy Networks LLC // Co-Founder & CTO
    AS30475 - Level(3), HE, Telia, XO and Cogent. Noction optimized network.
    Offering Dedicated Server and Colocation Hosting from our SSAE 16 SOC 2, Type 2 Certified Data Center.
    Current specials here. Check them out.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    The one place they have you boxed into a corner is prior-version use rights. If for example you need to run a Windows 2000 box, you can't do it under the "unauthenticated" SKU. You have to use the new SKU, since the new SPUR does provide prior-version use rights.

    So the moral of the story is, if you must use something older than Server 2008, you MUST go to the outsourcer SKU. (assuming the box is used for outsourcer purposes)

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    387
    Microsoft makes money on something? Yeah I see where the pricing has changed to greatly affect the little guys, but only Microsoft knows how well they have faired with Windows Server 2008 so far. I have not seen the greatest demand for it in the webhosting market, but for large Enterprise customers, they will just consider this a budget adjustment to move with the latest technologies.

    There will always be pricing pressure from Linux environments (free) to stay someone reasonably priced, but for the average small Joe host, this means a bunch more expenses to deal with to pass on to customers. Customers will have to learn to live with the added cost or decide to find something else. I think Microsoft likes it that way though, don't you? They prefer their product be thought of as worth the expense even if the expense is high. And to many customers, it still is the best (that they know of).
    - Donovan K
    Want to monitor and manage your customers Windows systems by Client software, web portal, or mobile phone?
    Automated scripts, patching, and remote access too? Ask me how!


  8. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by dspkable View Post
    They prefer their product be thought of as worth the expense even if the expense is high. And to many customers, it still is the best (that they know of).
    There's little doubt Redmond has a tight grip on main street, and a comfortable grip in Fortune 500 space. Main street mom and pop shops are not apt to use Linux on their PCs and laptops because you can't get Linux versions of Quickbooks and all the other $200 apps they depend on. In Fortune 500 space, it's a lot easier to deploy and manage MS desktop applications without the learning curve teaching Joe Cubicle how to use Open Office.

    And Microsoft knows this.

    So it's not necessarily their products are better, much as they want us to believe. But there is something to be said for ubiquity.

    And Microsoft knows this.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    374
    Ya,

    ...kind of reminds one of the old fairy tale.

    Where one Knight confided with another over a fine pint of Ale at the local pub for less than white Knights...

    You know why I did not slay that old dragon don't you?
    No?

    I had a good long talk and got into his his head, so now I know what his thinking is on all this rampaging and pillaging across the land.

    You do?

    Yep!

    Well, is this good time to ask which head? Last count that old Dragon had grown out over fifteen different heads!!

    ...opps

    More Ale?

    Yep
    ABSF
    Arrogant Bastard Server Farm
    Built from scratch Data Center serving
    100 year-old Metaphysical Library

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    The backplane
    Posts
    1,788
    Quote Originally Posted by dspkable View Post
    I have not seen the greatest demand for it in the webhosting market, but for large Enterprise customers, they will just consider this a budget adjustment to move with the latest technologies.
    That's exactly correct. Many companies are entrenched into Windows and converting to a "free" OS like Linux would be a logistical nightmare or impossibility based on their needs. Microsoft increases prices because they can.

    Windows has its market, Linux has its market. In many cases, they are not the same despite what some people try to cram down your throat. Will this change? Maybe, but in the meantime I doubt Microsoft is going to back-down or change their pricing. The relatively small amount of customers they lose is more than made up by what the rest pay to keep things status-quo.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by Sekweta View Post
    Heads Up.

    Forget everything you've learned about Windows Server "authenticated" and "unauthenticated" licensing for your monthly SPLA reports. The game has completely changed, and NOT for the better.

    Microsoft has changed to "outsourcer" and "non-outsourcer" licensing instead.

    Quoting Microsoft:


    I contacted MS directly for clarification on how this applies to webhosting. The response was, if the service provider is (and I quote), "simply managing the infrastructure layer and not managing anything else... in other words just keeping the lights on", that is non-outsourced.

    If you are providing any software or management of the environment, even something as simple as Windows Updates or other basic management tasks on the server-- which is the case, for example, if you are running a shared webserver, then it is "outsourced".

    Your email server is providing a service that is considered an outsourced service, and you must report (and pay for) an "outsourced" license for that server.

    And here is the bad news.

    Under the old terms, the Datacenter edition of Windows Server (which allows unlimited VMs at no additional charge on the machine where the license is assigned) cost just under $50/month.

    The new "outsourcer" Datacenter license is nearly $250/mo. Yes, you read that right, a whopping 400% monthly license fee increase for Datacenter edition.

    A single copy of Windows Server Standard edition is over $75/mo. when used in the outsourcing role. OUCH!!!

    Other pricing and terms have changed as well, so grab a copy of the new SPUR and READ it. All it takes is a moment of uncertainty to put you wildly out of compliance under this new layer of insanity.
    Create two companies, one that just keeps the lights on, and another company that is paid by the first company to manage services. This should bypass any fee increases "I think".
    AfterNorth Innovative solutions for tomorrow, today.
    0spam.org AntiSpam for Service Providers
    DotNetInvoice Online Billing Solutions
    Professional Services Since 1996

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    353
    You could, but that gets borderline questionable. Even then, you'd probably have some double taxation going on since company one pays taxes on income from its customers, and then company two pays taxes on what company one pays it. Would rather run a simple, stable business than complicate things just to skirt licensing fees.
    Ken Robertson | Linked Labs | linkedlabs.com

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by Qgyen View Post
    You could, but that gets borderline questionable. Even then, you'd probably have some double taxation going on since company one pays taxes on income from its customers, and then company two pays taxes on what company one pays it. Would rather run a simple, stable business than complicate things just to skirt licensing fees.
    Thats how all the large hosting companies are going to do it I'm sure and if you setup your incorporations properly you actually pay less taxes. Obviously you would want a lawyer to look at the legal part of it before you actually do anything like that.
    Last edited by Kiamori; 09-25-2009 at 02:24 PM.
    AfterNorth Innovative solutions for tomorrow, today.
    0spam.org AntiSpam for Service Providers
    DotNetInvoice Online Billing Solutions
    Professional Services Since 1996

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    14

    Addition Information and Speculation on Microsoft "Outsource" SPLA

    This has become quite the hot topic--and rightly so. It can have a serious impact on profitability in smaller hosting environments.

    This article has additional info on the topic and links that may be helpful:
    http://www.smartertools.com/blog/arc...ws-server.aspx

    Be well,

    Jeff Hardy
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    The SmarterMail blogger wrote:
    Based upon some of the forum posts that I have read there are some SPLA resellers out there saying things like “if it is a mail server it is Outsourced” and we think that this is not likely the intent.
    Unfortunately, that is not correct. I communicated with both our SPLA partner and directly with Microsoft licensing, and both gave me the same answer. If the software running on the machine is NOT our (the host's) intellectual property, then it is considered an outsourced service and an Outsourcer license must be applied to the server.

    This of course includes a machine running SmarterMail, which I'm sure the folks at SmarterTools consider bad news, since the Outsourcer version of Windows Server is ridiculously expensive.

    As a software vendor, they have to be unhappy that it will cost hosts (like all of us) more money to use their product from a Windows licensing standpoint.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    463
    But then IIS 7 isn't your intellectual property either (the host)so I guess everything is going to be charged as outsourced?

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    Below is quoted exactly as I received it from the Microsoft licensing team. I posed Scenario #1 in the context of a self-service web hosting provider. I said the only thing we do is apply Windows Updates. Customers upload their own files and applications, and we provide NO management, programming, or other value-added services.

    Microsoft's answer is rather ambiguous, given the words "self-service" in my original question are pretty self-explanatory.

    Scenario #1 below depends upon what the Hoster is actually providing as their service offering. Are they providing a managed web hosting service where the IP [intellectual property] is not theirs and is used by both internal and external Users? If so then it would require the Outsourcing SKU. This would be scenario #4 from the Licensing Brief.

    Or, is it scenario #1 from the Licensing Brief where they are simply managing the infrastructure layer and not managing anything else? In other words just keeping the lights on. If so then it is non-outsourcing.
    My interpretation of "just keeping the lights on" means the customer has admin/root access and is fully responsible for the entire operation of the server. (which is NOT the case in a shared webhosting environment where customers have no root access)

    Next, I asked Scenario #2, about mail servers-- specifically in the case where we provide free self-service POP boxes as part of the customer's self-service webhosting account. The answer was clear:

    And scenario #2 requires outsourcing

  18. #43
    We have been told the same thing from Microsoft regarding Mail Servers being Outsourced, so as we are using SmarterMail I bought it up with their sales team.

    They really looked into this issue as I guess it would have a big impact on their own sales and posted the following article in their blog which makes really good reading:-

    smartertools.com/blog/archive/2009/10/21/understanding-the-new-outsourced-and-non-outsourced-microsoft-spla-licensing-for-windows-server.aspx

    Their interpretation of Microsofts SPLA Outsourced/non-outsourced licensing is that mail servers in a shared hosting environment are non-outsourced.

    Lets hope that Microsoft can see sense as at the moment the whole thing is totally confusing and contradictory.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by webwiz View Post
    Their interpretation of Microsofts SPLA Outsourced/non-outsourced licensing is that mail servers in a shared hosting environment are non-outsourced.

    Lets hope that Microsoft can see sense as at the moment the whole thing is totally confusing and contradictory.
    Agreed, and therein lies the rub. SmarterTools would like a hosted email server to be non-outsourced. WE would like the same.

    But it comes down to Microsoft and their assertion the IP (intellectual property) running on the server must be that of the host itself. So if I create an application, and run it on my own servers, then I own the IP and can use the non-outsourcer license. If I install someone ELSE's application, then I am an outsourcer, because they came to ME to host someone ELSE's app.

    Now... where does this leave SmarterTools? Actually, since SmarterMail is ST's own intellectual property, under the wording of the Microsoft brief, they could run their own email servers as non-outsourced.

    So in that regard, ST and other companies like them, now have a competitive advantage as it relates to Windows Server licensing costs-- especially considering (as is my understanding) they are dabbling in selling SmarterMail as SaaS running on their own servers.
    Last edited by Sekweta; 10-23-2009 at 11:19 AM.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    14
    Good conversation.

    Of all the people that I talked to so far it seems that each one gets a little different answer depending on who they are talking to. The Intellectual Proerty statement seems to only apply when you are not offering "true" SaaS. We know that the people who are answering the phones and making SPLA audit and sales calls are saying some things, but their statements do not make sense in context. It makes more sense that this change was targeted to dedicated environments for mail, db, and/or others. If we are wrong and this is not the case it may imply a nastier intent on Micorsoft's part.

    What is good for SmarterTools is what is good for the industry as a whole. We got our start by marketing to hosting providers, our CEO has a long history there, and we have designed our software to excel in that environment. We are dedicated to mutual success--which is why we wrote the article and why we are posting here.

    Anyway...If we all scream loudly enough we may be heard.

    Be well,

    Jeff Hardy
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffhardy View Post
    Anyway...If we all scream loudly enough we may be heard.
    That's what I am hoping for. I've tried to make noise on this wherever I lurk, in addition to putting my opinion on record with our SPLA partner and directly to several folks on the Microsoft licensing team.

    Don't know if it will do any good, but at least I can say I tried.


    Quote Originally Posted by jeffhardy View Post
    Be well
    Fan of Demolition Man, by chance? (that was a catch-phrase in the movie)

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    14
    I have seen Demolition Man, but I do not know where I picked up "Be well" as a sign off. I have been using it for years.

    In any event, let us hope that Microsoft is not modeling their SPLA program after the Wesley Snipes character and that all hosting companies do not become Taco Bell.

    Be....um......what the heck! Be well!
    <<< Please see Forum Guidelines for signature setup. >>>

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    973
    Quote Originally Posted by jeffhardy View Post
    I have seen Demolition Man, but I do not know where I picked up "Be well" as a sign off. I have been using it for years.

    In any event, let us hope that Microsoft is not modeling their SPLA program after the Wesley Snipes character and that all hosting companies do not become Taco Bell.

    Be....um......what the heck! Be well!
    mmm...

    Taco Bell!
    AfterNorth Innovative solutions for tomorrow, today.
    0spam.org AntiSpam for Service Providers
    DotNetInvoice Online Billing Solutions
    Professional Services Since 1996

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiamori View Post
    mmm...

    Taco Bell!
    For those not familiar with the movie, Taco Bell was the only surviver of the restaurant chain wars. All restaurants were known as Taco Bell.


  25. #50
    This PDF may be helpful:

    https://h40095.www4.hp.com/Phoenix/P..._Licensing.pdf

    It specifically address shared web hosting non-outsourcing.

    Also, the terms for the Windows Server "Web" SKU have not changed, so that might be a way to host applications such as SmarterMail. The relevant portion of the SPUR seems to lead me to believe that this is indeed the case:

    For Windows Web Server 2008 R2:

    The total number of software licenses required for a server equals the sum of the software licenses required under (i) and (ii) below.
    i. To run one instance of the server software at any one time in either one physical operating system environment or one virtual operating system environment on a server, you need a software license for each physical processor on that server.
    ii. To run each additional instance of the server software at any one time in either one physical operating system environment or one virtual operating system environment, you need a software license for each physical processor on that server.

    Limitations on Use.

    The software may be used solely as an Internet-accessible front-end web server for development and deployment of the following:
    • Web pages
    • Web sites
    • Web applications
    • Web services
    • POP3 mail serving

    You may run database engine software on an instance of the software solely to support applications running on the same instance of the software. You may run web server software (for example, Microsoft Internet Information Services), management or security agents (for example, the MOM agent) on an instance of the software.

    Any other usage of the software is not permitted.
    Last edited by tulsaconnect; 10-24-2009 at 06:34 PM.
    _______________________________________
    Mike Bacher - TulsaConnect Data Centers
    mikeb @ tulsaconnect.com - http://www.tulsaconnect.com
    Tulsa, OK - Dedicated Servers, Co-location, VPS

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Microsoft SPLA Licensing
    By ewchen in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-22-2009, 09:35 AM
  2. Microsoft SPLA... VPS licensing?
    By hostbox in forum VPS Hosting
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-30-2009, 03:13 AM
  3. Microsoft SPLA Licensing Vendor Needed
    By jcy1978 in forum Software & Scripts Requests
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 03:53 PM
  4. Windows Licensing Question: Retail vs. SPLA
    By zynfella in forum Dedicated Server
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-18-2008, 09:18 AM
  5. SPLA Terminal Services Licensing
    By boonchuan in forum Hosting Security and Technology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2005, 10:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •