Results 26 to 50 of 165
-
09-21-2009, 05:37 PM #26Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 1,224
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.
-
09-21-2009, 06:20 PM #27Aspiring Evangelist
- 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
-
09-21-2009, 07:38 PM #28Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 1,224
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.
-
09-22-2009, 12:35 PM #29Aspiring Evangelist
- 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
-
09-22-2009, 12:42 PM #30Web Hosting Master
- 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.
-
09-22-2009, 01:35 PM #31Web Hosting Master
- 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)
-
09-22-2009, 02:21 PM #32Aspiring Evangelist
- 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).
-
09-22-2009, 02:40 PM #33Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 1,224
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.
-
09-22-2009, 08:31 PM #34Aspiring Evangelist
- 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?
YepABSF
Arrogant Bastard Server Farm
Built from scratch Data Center serving
100 year-old Metaphysical Library
-
09-22-2009, 09:17 PM #35Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- The backplane
- Posts
- 1,788
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.
-
09-24-2009, 05:21 PM #36Artificial Intelligence
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Minnesota
- Posts
- 973
███ AfterNorth Innovative solutions for tomorrow, today.
███ 0spam.org AntiSpam for Service Providers ♪
███ DotNetInvoice Online Billing Solutions ♫
███ Professional Services Since 1996
-
09-24-2009, 07:15 PM #37Aspiring Evangelist
- 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
-
09-25-2009, 02:18 PM #38Artificial Intelligence
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Minnesota
- Posts
- 973
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
-
10-22-2009, 05:17 PM #39Newbie
- 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. >>>
-
10-22-2009, 05:40 PM #40Web Hosting Master
- 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.
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.
-
10-22-2009, 06:22 PM #41Web Hosting Evangelist
- 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?
-
10-22-2009, 08:41 PM #42Web Hosting Master
- 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.
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
-
10-23-2009, 06:46 AM #43Newbie
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Posts
- 18
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.
-
10-23-2009, 11:16 AM #44Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 1,224
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.
-
10-23-2009, 12:01 PM #45Newbie
- 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. >>>
-
10-23-2009, 12:18 PM #46Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 1,224
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.
Fan of Demolition Man, by chance? (that was a catch-phrase in the movie)
-
10-23-2009, 01:39 PM #47Newbie
- 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. >>>
-
10-24-2009, 03:41 PM #48Artificial Intelligence
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Location
- Minnesota
- Posts
- 973
███ AfterNorth Innovative solutions for tomorrow, today.
███ 0spam.org AntiSpam for Service Providers ♪
███ DotNetInvoice Online Billing Solutions ♫
███ Professional Services Since 1996
-
10-24-2009, 03:51 PM #49Web Hosting Master
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Posts
- 1,224
-
10-24-2009, 06:29 PM #50Newbie
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Tulsa, OK
- Posts
- 13
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
Similar Threads
-
Microsoft SPLA Licensing
By ewchen in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 5Last Post: 08-22-2009, 09:35 AM -
Microsoft SPLA... VPS licensing?
By hostbox in forum VPS HostingReplies: 1Last Post: 04-30-2009, 03:13 AM -
Microsoft SPLA Licensing Vendor Needed
By jcy1978 in forum Software & Scripts RequestsReplies: 1Last Post: 12-25-2008, 03:53 PM -
Windows Licensing Question: Retail vs. SPLA
By zynfella in forum Dedicated ServerReplies: 6Last Post: 01-18-2008, 09:18 AM -
SPLA Terminal Services Licensing
By boonchuan in forum Hosting Security and TechnologyReplies: 0Last Post: 07-21-2005, 10:18 AM