Microsoft Turning Screws on Customers 432
Mitch Wagner submitted his own story about Microsoft cracking down on big customers who it thinks aren't playing fair on their licenses. "These days, the only thing that Microsoft is interested in discussing with its customers is licensing issues," said John Luludis, CIO of Danzas AEI, an international shipping company with about 10,000 Windows desktops. "We spend a lot of time and resources constantly proving license compliance, while we try to plan an optimum configuration to deal with the rising cost of ownership related to Microsoft's products.""
Sounds only fair... (Score:3)
If the companies in question signed an agreement with Microsoft, surely they can't complain when the other party actually wants what is due to them.
It's high time everyone learned what making deals with the devil actually means. Eventually he will collect, in blood...
Helping Linux Out (Score:4)
I guess the outlook for alternative OSs and office suites is VERY good.
I've got yer plan right here! (Score:2)
Linux? BSD?
Rising costs = opening for Linux or *BSD? (Score:2)
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day.
Give M$ a Shovel (Score:2)
After Virginia Beach, this shouldn't be news (Score:4)
Now, I could get into the idea that MS waited until there was ample evidence that some governments were dependant on it's products before starting this, but that would sound like a Linux zelot.
Still begs the issue, why now? Why did they not start on day one and come down on pirates? Why have there been posts on MS bulletin boards saying that they don't care if you take the OS you use at work home with you to use. Unless they knew this day would come and only now the boom is lowering.
Does this really surprise anyone? Ensure everyone is dependant on it, saturate the market, then suddenly decide to play hardball with licenses. Gee, sounds like a decent business practice, but only works if you're a monopoly.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page [cavalrypilot.com]
Why audit? (Score:2)
So does anyone know what happens if a company refuses to audit?
Microsoft Kills (Score:3)
New York, N.Y. March 30th,2001
In an independent study conducted this month by staff at AntiOffline.com, and MacroShaft.org, it was revelead that Microsoft is killing people on a daily basis, with the evidence verified by statisticians at New York University's Mike Hunt.
"Based on these estimated projections, it seems the Justice Department needs to begin a prompt investigation into this matter." states Mike.
Judging on data gathered on a one month term this is the output:
Windows users crash an estimated two times a day which requires an estimated 3 minutes to reboot. Result?
(Rough estimates)
100 million Windows users x 120 seconds == 507 years lost. 6 deaths a day are attributed to this product. This alone does not include any estimates from those users who have to reboot upon installing programs. Nor does this include time spent configuring TCP/IP reboots.
With an estimated dollar amount of about 22 million dollars lost weekly (this is a generous amount) due to these reboots, its strange that no company has gone bankrupt.
"If anyone would care to break these figures down into dramatic fashion, their would probably be global catastrophes." states Sil of AntiOffline
The difference between life and death on the workplace is no longer restricted to psychotic Postal workers, but rather a more chilling enemy known as the Blue Screen of Death.
We've yet attempted to solidly document that *actual* numbers out of fears our calculator could not reach the given amount, so we actually have given Microsoft what could be an actual death toll of 20-30 people daily.
Staff at Microsoft declined to return our e-mails repeatedly but we will continue to pursue the numbers as time goes by.
President George W. Bush today also intervened on Microsoft's behalf stating, AntiOffline's numbers are fuzzy math. Sil could not be contacted for comment.
"Windows -- When do you want to reboot today?"
who'd a thought [antioffline.com]
This is ridiculous (Score:2)
Cost Burden (Score:5)
If a software company wants to, they could audit your licence compliance monthy and put you out of business _EVEN IF YOU DON'T USE A SINGLE PIRATED PROGRAM_. The fact that they are taking a week out of every one of your months will probably kill you.
Rising Costs (Score:2)
I know this has been beaten like a dead horse but, Linux. One copy, one license, 10,000 desktops, it does th office productivity and internetworking that the windows machines do just fine, A good desktop (Gnome, KDE) is intutive enough that retraining would be minimal, not to mention the costs that could be saved. On the flip side, it would take more on the technician end, but I think dropping the cost of 10,000 M$ Windows licenses would more than make up for it.
I have this same problem. (Score:3)
Legally licensed and Operated...The Linux Pimp [thelinuxpimp.com]
They're auditing us (Score:4)
Some of it is our fault because we trusted the wrong folks internally to keep track (long story and trust me, you don't care to hear it) but there is a lesson to be learned in making sure someone keeps track of these things. Preferably someone involved with computers...
Of course I'm having a very hard time biting my tongue about how we could avoid this problem in the future. (*cough* linux *cough*)
sounds familiar (Score:4)
Uh-huh. Talk about a thinly veiled threat. We had just done a software audit a couple weeks beforehand, so we were cool. But still, the damn thing read like some Mafia protection letter.
Dirk
What happened to Microsoft's 'Blind Eye'? (Score:3)
I guess with a company that is as large as the one mentioned, with as many Win32 desktops, Microsoft values extracting as many dollars as they can through extortion tacticts rather than turning the other cheek and increasing their good karma with 'Microsoft Shops'.
Dammit (Score:5)
I first read it as:
"Turning Microsoft On Screws Customers"
This really isn't news (Score:2)
So please CmdrTaco, please don't do the knee jerk response and post EVERYTHING that goes against MS, we already KNOW how full of shit Gate and co are...and anyways, after a certain point it just makes you look like a troll.
some companys change money for "services" when (Score:2)
BTW, about a year ago i interviewed for the "Anti Piracy" group at MS. They we're very interested in encyption, and my JavaScript skills (which i had none of). Bunch of weird scary looking guys, not the normal breed of geek you find at MS. They didn't seem to bright either (hey they made me an offer). They also wanted a second interview to see what kind of "person" i was.. i think because i would be the only guy there who was under 40 and didn't live with there mother.
but anyway.
-Jon
Streamripper [sourceforge.net]
How Microsoft licenses isn't too straightforward. (Score:2)
(Sigh!)
No, you can't be surprised at that. However, one point raised in the article is (if I may be allowed to paraphrase) is that trying to understand the terms of the MS license for your software is somewhat akin to trying to derive a sommon sense meaning from a Scientology manual.
(Sigh, sigh!)
Just because something is legal, doesn't mean that is moral - or practical - or good business sense - or reasonable!
Re:And this is why... (Score:3)
By scaring people now, corporations will buy licenses. They will continue buying MS to stay legal. This will force home users to also buy the latest software, as the corporations are distributing everything using MS Word 2004 Shiney Professional with Sprinkle Power.
The question will become, how fast will people be able crack the activation scheme?
--------------------------
Re:After Virginia Beach, this shouldn't be news (Score:2)
Can microsoft be sued to pay for lost time? (Score:5)
They want a license for every re-install... (Score:4)
Re:Why audit? (Score:3)
Because licenses are binding contracts and they can be fined for breaking them.
It seems to me that if a company owns the hardware, and knows that they at least got an OEM license for Windows with the machine, they should be able to tell Micro$oft to take their audit request and shove it.
This assumes that they only license stand alone operating systems and don't have any kind of applications or services requiring client access like SQL Server or Exchange.
So does anyone know what happens if a company refuses to audit?
You pray you can't be sued in a state that has passed UCITA. Maryland and Virginia, I think.
Why Must Linux ALWAYS be the answer? (Score:4)
Picture putting Linux on one of your sales force's desk. They wouldn't know what to do with it. Linux (or in my case FreeBSD) is the answer for people like US. All of the techies, kernel hackers, coders and network admins that understand how to use Unix. You would spend more money retraining your people, and higher support costs running around answering questions, than you would spending to make your company M$ license compliant.
Get a site license and don't worry about it. You'll sleep better tonight.
Brad
Re:Dammit (Score:2)
"Microsoft Screws Turning Customers"
All your data (and biz plans) are belong to M$! (Score:3)
--
It's all about keeping the stock price up. (Score:5)
Microsoft has been able to keep it's stock price stratospheric for years by posting record earnings. However, with slumping hardware sales, a slowing economy, lethargic adoption of Windows 2000 and Office 2000 and a emergence of a real threat on the low end server from Linux and BSD Microsoft can no longer afford to look the other way when it comes to licensing issues. Microsoft needs the revenues, and it needs them now. After all, employee options are a huge part of the average Microsoftie's employment package. If their stock doesn't go up (or worse, if it goes down), then working at Microsoft is not really that nifty a job.
In the past Microsoft realized that casual sharing of their software actually served as a very effective free advertising campaign. It helped maintain their position by making sure that their software was ubiquitous. Now that they have the market tied up, they are looking to reel in all the freeloaders.
Microsoft's plan will backfire, especially if they continue pestering companies that are honestly trying to comply.
Bastards (Score:2)
It's sad to say, but this is why Microsoft is so successful. Bill Gates is both a computer guy AND a businessman. He probably knows, but wont admit, that windows is unstable as hell and that the things he does are evil. But he doesn't care, because it gets him more money.
A company isn't going to switch from windows to something like linux because microsoft harrasses them about licenses. It's just a way for microsoft to squeeze money out of its customers who can't or wont use another product. That's why it's called a MONOPOLY.
Re:What happened to Microsoft's 'Blind Eye'? (Score:2)
Why now? Keep the growth going (Score:2)
Typical Slashdot Hypocrisy (Score:2)
The FSF starts a GPL crackdown and the person that broke the license is the bad guy, not the FSF.
Perhaps you people need to know that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones?
Re:Sounds only fair... (Score:5)
The biggest problem is that no two people at MS give you the same answer to the same question. I have spent many hours on the phone with MS sales people and they are in general, smart, competent folks. But one guy interprets the contract-speak one way, another sales guy interprets it another way, and I read it a completely different way. When nobody is on the same page, things get screwed up. What I'm really afriad of is how they're going to license the new
-B
I have mixed feelings about this (Score:2)
---
Thanks again CmdrTaco! (Score:2)
:)
Seriously though, why should we be feeling sorry for these people? So they didn't bother to document how many licenses they have and how many desktops they have running which software.... how exactly is that some sort of Microsoft problem?
It would appear that CmdrTaco is attempting to scare people by giving the impression that Microsoft runs around with a club trying to beat people over the head for more money (that may or may not be the case.)
I know that we keep exact records of how many licenses we have for each piece of software, and how many of those licenses are currently in use. Microsoft could walk in tomorrow and we can present the proof that we have x copies installed and we own y licenses, end of story. Any IT/PC support department worth their salt would be doing the same.
Cost is another issue entirely. Sure, the initial price for a Linux system is little to nothing, but when you factor in other issues that corporations face every day, the Linux value isn't quite the deal it once appeared to be.
First of all, there is no MS Access equivalent. That would mean we'd have to switch over all these little programs that have maybe 10 users to another system. There really isn't any RAD programming system for Linux (Klyx ain't there yet.), so that means a lot of time and effort for something pretty small.
There is also the cost of retraining all of our users and staff. We would have to try and track down and support lots of Linux apps for various tasks, if they even exist. If not, we'd have to write and support our own from scratch. I would also say anywhere from 20% to 50% of the peripherals and components in the systems we have out there don't have any Linux support whatsoever, which means replacing a lot of hardware.
The lack of any standard Directory Services client also hurts. The only real options without spending an insane amount of money are NDS and AD, neither of which have Linux clients.
Oh, and any time any person on the company wants a software application, we would have to go scour the net to try and find a Linux-compatible one, or try and write out own.
When you compare all that to the cost of Windows 2000 (less than $10,000 for 7 copies of server and 1000 user CALs under our select contract), and it really doesn't make sense to switch.
-------
-- russ
"You want people to think logically? ACK! Turn in your UID, you traitor!"
Re:This is ridiculous (Score:2)
That isn't actually true. The GPL is a license (in other words an implicit contract), but it rests on the right of distribution (a copyright) without which agreement you would be unable to distribute GPL'd software.
Use of GPL'd software doesn't come into it. First of all using a product isn't a copyright, so you don't need to agree to anything in order to do it (with the exception of public performances). Secondly, prohibiting specific uses would be inimical to the free software community.
FWIW, I doubt that use clauses of a standard shrinkwrap license would be enforcable if you made it clear that you didn't intend to be bound by them, and were using the software without a license under the general use provisions of copyright law.
Maybe a better investment would be ... (Score:2)
Maybe a better investment would be, to train the staff to use another operating system, instead of always trying to figure out how to make the best of Microsoft licensing terms, only to have it in pieces again, when Microsoft decides to change their licensing again. At least retraining has to be done only once. Also they may expect that with the event of XP (which means eXPerience as we all now learned) they're in for a totally new (but not better) licensing eXPerience.
Licensing - the App Killer (Score:2)
Microsoft's licensing scheme would have killed us. We would have to buy a client license for every client machine, a server license for every connection to the server, and a Citrix license on top of all this. We would have paid these, but even without charging for our application and services we would have been unable to compete on price. There must be another way.
[Enter stage left: Linux.]
We were already a Unix shop. Some of our programmers were playing with RedHat 5.x. Then, it hit us: no client license fees for Linux. Would Linux prove robust enough for mission critical applications? Yep.
This is a compelling business reason for choosing Linux (or other OS/FS alternative). Yes, we had technical reasons, too (having the source is terrific), but the business realities sealed the deal.
Microsoft may have changed its technologies to focus on the Internet, but its pricing strategies are stuck in a 1983 standalone time warp.
Panspermia (Score:2)
Hey man, copies of Win2K just blew across the road and sprouted on my desktop
Re:Rising Costs (Score:2)
Re:After Virginia Beach, this shouldn't be news (Score:2)
The problem isn't making other companies follow the law, it's what constitutes "following the law."
Apparently, the issue is what constitutes a valid Windows license. As a result, there is significant confusion as to whether companies have valid licenses, need upgraded licenses, or how many licenses they need for a particular software installation. Microsoft seems to be in no hurry to clean up confusion, leading to people paying double for software, or outright discontinuing software installation plans when it turns out that they need some outrageously large number of licenses.
Read the article, not the summary, before posting.
--
Re:Rising Costs (Score:2)
Sorry, that sounds like a major flame, but I'm just trying to make a point. Switching to Linux would work for a technically proficient, computer programming only company, but any service oriented company with customer service reps is going to have a hard time doing so. You must remember that non-programmer types (which are more prevelant than programmers) use Windows everyday, but they don't have a clue what Linux is. That having been said, I'm sick of using Windows and would love to use Linux for everyday use, but that's not how my company works.
Re:After Virginia Beach, this shouldn't be news (Score:2)
Well, there is one important difference: the GPL licensing really only deals with distribution, not use, but a Microsoft license is primarily concerned with your use of the product. That's why Bruce Perens (who seems to come to mind as someone likely to point out GPL violations, although my apologies to him if that is an unfair characterization) can't come into your place of business and audit your Linux boxes the way that Microsoft can come in and audit your Windows boxes.
What Microsoft is doing is entirely legal, but I think that overall they're creating more problems for themselves than they're solving.
Re:Nobody is "screwing" anybody! (Score:2)
Were you ever a marketing director for a failed .com media company? This sounds a bit too much like "mindshare is our biggest asset" for me to be comfortable with.
_____________
Good 'ole MS (Score:2)
When Microsoft heard about the application, it demanded that the airline pay for a full-time license for every computer that would access the app, Reeder said. "I told them that was ridiculous," he said. "I can't license every computer in the world."
This is pretty damn funny, but am I missing something here? Why should the airline be responsible for licensing remote users? Is this "mainframe work-scheduling application" a Microsoft app that has to be licensed (which I can almost understand), or are they saying that any computer simply accessing a remote NT box has to be licensed to do so?
Somehow, I can't help but think of the Star Wars quote, "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip though your fingers". And yes all you quote geeks, I realize that probably isn't exact
Alt. OSes.. sure, but what about apps? (Score:2)
Re:Helping Linux Out (Score:3)
Of course, I could be biased because I happen to agree with the poster. The simple truth is that this tactic is nothing but good for Linux and friends. Take for instance the Alaska Airlines bit. The overall cost of the project was going to exceed their acceptable budget by $250,000. For a small airline, still suffering from a tarnished image that is just way too much money.
I fully expect that we will see this scenario replayed many more times with different companies and I'd bet that most aren't going to be willing to shelf a good idea, when there is a more economical solution.
Re:What happened to Microsoft's 'Blind Eye'? (Score:2)
About the only way they can increase market share is if the market itself is growing or if they can use their thumbscrews to extract more seats from that market.
Re:Thanks again CmdrTaco! (Score:5)
Pardon me sir, Haywood Jablome here. I'm chief auditor for Microsoft, and I'm troubled by the figures you present in your analysis here. You mentioned "X copies installed and Y licenses", pointing to the fact that there is a DISCREPANCY between the number of copies installed and the number of licenses you have purchased. Please stay where you are; an auditing strike team will be arriving within 3 hours to verify that your values of X and Y are equal, or even better, that Y is greater than X.
Thank you for your time,
Heywood Jablome
Chief Auditor, Microsoft Corp.
"All your license are belong to us"
Re:I know I'm missing something here... (Score:2)
In the Alaska Airlines situation you describe, the clients in question are connecting directly to the NT servers and using their resources. According to MS, that means they have to pay for client licenses.
we were audited (Score:2)
Re:Sounds only fair... (Score:2)
So if i have a license which allows my business to run 200 instances of program "foo" worldwide, and do the necessary installing on the machines it's supposed to run on, then i might even install it on 600 machines if only 200 of them use it at a time (think license server, applications only used during daytime, worldwide business and timezones). Now *that* might be something to lower license costs.
Sounds like... (Score:5)
Gosh, these licenses sure are hard to keep track of!
Oh I know
If only Microsoft had some kind of product for me...
Tracking Licenses (Score:2)
Novell's ZENWorks is supposed to do that, but the inventory functions are pure S***.
Microsoft's SMS will do it as well, among the many things it also does.
If you need Remote Control, Software distribution, Inventory, etc... and you are on a Windows network, go with SMS.
If you just need Inventory, go with Tally Systems.
Hope this helps those out there in the IT world that cannot afford to use Open Source software for everything, and still need to keep track of licenses.
-------
-- russ
"You want people to think logically? ACK! Turn in your UID, you traitor!"
Re:Knowledge of plan HURTS (Score:2)
We got targeted (Score:2)
When my girlfriend was in a car accident, the idiot who caused it hired a lawyer. The weasel lawyer sent out official-looking, registered mail stating that he needed her immediate written responses to the contained survey and questions. Her insurance company said to forward it to them and forget about it, as the lawyer had no right to any of that information. A similar tactic was used when my mother was rear-ended at a stoplight.
Simple fact is that we aren't required to give Microsoft diddly. They are not a federal agency, they don't have authority to demand the info, and we aren't going to give it to them.
Simple solution is to quietly make sure, should the occassion arise that we need to give the proper authority proof, we are up-to-date on our licensing. Sending the information places you in a much more dangerous situation, because Microsoft knows you're scared and ready to cooperate with them.
Incidentally, we were contacted very shortly after by a Microsoft employee who congratulated us on our recent growth (no, I don't know how he knew) and asked if we needed any more licenses to keep us legal. Coincidence... I think not.
Redistribution not a provision in the GPL (Score:2)
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Maybe in Texas (Score:5)
Question (Score:2)
Does Microsoft inform you in their EULA about these audits?
The truth about /. (Score:2)
Well, now that I understand true subversive tactics from "1984", it's clear to me that CmdrTaco == Bill Gates.
Identify deviants, recruit them, gain their trust, then burn and 're-educate' them. How do you think
Old
(evil grin)
-----
D. Fischer
And this is a BAD Thing? (Score:2)
Re:I have this same problem. (Score:2)
Sheesh, the M$ FUD is getting more subtle all the time, isn't it?
The answer to your question is no. There will be no such sweeps. Why? Because no organization, certainly not the FSF, has the right to demand that you divulge internal records or allow their access to your equipment like Microsoft gains when you "sign" one of their licensing agreements.
Pretty much compliance with GPL and other licenses will depend on informants, which BTW is probably the primary way that the SPA finds out about corporations cheating on licensing agreements now.
---
Re:Nobody is "screwing" anybody! (Score:5)
First of all, Microsoft's licensing terms and conditions are unbelievably vague, and not just for the operating system licenses, but for the applications and client access licenses as well.
Try developing a custom application using Exchange 2000, Conferencing Server, and SQL Server 2000 to be accessed by internal users, business partners, and transient consultants. Now imagine the project has a dedicated MS salesperson, and a squad of MS consultants who all have completely differing opinions on what requires a license and what does not. Now take it one step further, and imagine that someone at Microsoft thinks you're missing some licenses and demands a license audit. You spend the next two days trying to piece together what you have, what MS thinks you need, and what you really do need. It happened to my previous company, and after a week of arguing with MS were ultimately vindicated, when the know nothing in licensing was proved wrong.
Now I'm not saying that it isn't within MS's right to do so, but you should seriously consider the impact such a position will have on your customers. That situation so infuriated our CTO, that are next big _similar_ project used Domino and Sametime.
Re:Rising Costs (Score:2)
Capitalism for Dummies (Score:2)
Picture two little companies, competing against each other, one uses Windows, the other uses Linux. Microsoft has to do everything it can to milk as much cash as possible out of the first one, and cost of production for that company will inevitalbly be higher than for the other company. (Even accounting for the fact that the Linux-using company might need to hire a guru as its IT manager.
Its pure Darwin folks. The smarter comapnies will use the free OS, the dumber ones will stick with Bill & Co, and run themselves right out of business.
During the boom, this wasn't a problem because everyone was raking in the cash, but as soon as the coming Depression get really bad, people will be looking for ways to cut costs, and getting rid of the MS in a company is the best way to do that. Microsoft is doomed, but they are far too arrogant to realize it, and they might not until its too late.
Re:This is an outrage (Score:2)
I didn't mispell it. I left a 'b' out to symbolize all the pain and suffering my people have had to endure. So fuck off you smarmy little retard
Re:After Virginia Beach, this shouldn't be news (Score:3)
I think this get back at your employer tatic of advertising on the radio is about as slimeball a thing you can do. It's worse than ambulance chasers.
Did anyone know the more litigation in a society, the lower the GNP? It's a proven fact. Productivity drops sharply. Quality of life goes down.
Re:I know I'm missing something here... (Score:2)
Except when Microsoft say you must pay client licenses for each unique user who may possibly connect, as happened with Alaska in the story.
Microsoft's doom (Score:3)
Is it just me, or does it sound to anyone else like microsoft is finally dying? Dying may be a bit harsh. I'm certain that they'll always be around in one form or another. Even Novell is still with us. But there really seems to be serious issues with nearly every one of their products.
Does anyone know anybody who likes the idea of renting their software? It sounds to me like .NET will be the last nail in the coffin for MS. I can see entire companies leaving microsoft in droves over this one. Which is good for me. I'm a consultant who specializes in MS/Unix interoperability and porting from one to the other.
And what about becomming a license nazi? MS has already been caught collecting info from users machines and sending it back to MS. I read a newsgroup post saying that even some of their games were doing this. They're going after corporate customers now, when will they send a bomb to private users? Maybe it's not a coinsidence that this outlook/activex bug won't seem to die.
And has anyone actually looked at OS X? I played with it at compusa the other day. For the first time ever, I'm actually considering buying a macintosh. I'm telling you, it's unix, I was shocked. I opened a tcsh shell and looked around. With the MACH kernel and the aqua interface, it's everything that linux should be.
And they're taking a beating on the server front as we all know, especially with IIS. If I were doing a new web development project, I would certainly hesitate to go the IIS/ASP route. And is anyone really using C#?
All we need now is a champion for Star Office so that it's as polished as Office, yet still free/open-source.
It looks to me like they've dug their own grave, and now it's time for us to dance on it.
Microsoft's evolving license terms (Score:5)
(I submitted this InternetWeek story yesterday morning and it was rejected. How come it's accepted a day late?)
Re:More Knee-Jerk News (Score:2)
Moreover, the BSA (not the Boy Scouts) encourage employees to report their employers for non-compliance. Sounds innocent enough, until you have to deal with BSA representatives at your door because your ex-employee was ticked and told them you have pirated Windows installations. You could be completely legit, but you'll waste time and money proving it whenever some software company decides to ask.
Wow, I think I've slipped into rant mode, so I'll wrap up. I think illegal copying of software is wrong, but I have issues with companies that want to own me because I use their software.
Re:After Virginia Beach, this shouldn't be news (Score:2)
Let's see Msft Audit the IRS (Score:2)
Need contingency plans for migration away from MS? (Score:2)
Microsoft software is arguably a single point-of-failure. Desktops preferentially all run one version of MS-Windows, mailservers all run another, and fileservers are similarly uniform. Technically, this is very dangerous because an entire category of service could be lost to a bug/virus.
Now MS playing hardball is adding a legal failure mechanism. One or all MS software may become unrunnable due to legal issues. In negotiations with MS, a CEO needs alternatives if he is to have any power at all. ERP should give him some so he doesn't have to "bend over ..."
Re:^^^ IGNORE #66, MISPRINT ^^^ (Score:2)
It should be a cost/benefit analysis -- if you can't afford the lawyers and the accountants, don't select option #2. Businesses make these decisions all the time, chosing to pay out one large sum of money for low risk in favor of many small sums of money with unknown risk.
One of the worst mistakes is to put the techies in charge of licence compliance (because they usually have a totally lax attitude towards such things, and they are not exactly organizational geniuses).
I lived through a MS audit a few years ago with the kinder, gentler Microsoft. We had our shit in order and had bought certain selective site licences (such as for Office), so it was no problem.
Re:They're auditing us (Score:4)
For the past several years our firm was receiving shipments (100's at a time) of computers from various vendors (lowest price) which I was in charge of setting up and delivering to various users/desktops/cubes/etc. I always saved the documentation that came with these units (warranty/licenses/CD's/etc) and set them aside for safe keeping.
About a year ago, my boss asked what I did with this stuff. I showed him full monitor boxes stuffed with these goodies. Each box was clearly marked with what was inside (i.e. Office97: 200, Win95B: 200, etc). He promptly asked me to load them into his SUV so he could take them to our offsite storage building. While loading his truck, the shipping manager asked what I was doing. I explained myself. The manager then asked my boss to sign manifest/paperwork of some sort showing what was being removed from his shipping area. My boss signed it, then threw his copy into the trash. After loading his vehicle, I walked back thru shipping, stopping at the can my boss threw the paperwork into. For some reason, I picked up the slip he discarded into the trash and placed it into my pocket.
Eight months ago, Microsoft came calling. A meeting was held which I attended. Finance asked my boss where the licenses were. My boss then turned to me. Right then and there my career flashed before my eyes... then I remembered the slip I had picked up lazily out of the trash container that one day. I spoke up and said "Let me get the paperwork on that". I came back with the paperwork that the shipping manager made the boss sign and showed it to the CFO.
I'm typing this from my bosses old office.
Re:Maybe in Texas (Score:2)
Interesting point! As an owner of an OEM, I'm all for the fact that the are going after those who do not comply. I have to make sure that systems I sell, have licenses, so should everyone else.
HOWEVER, it does seem strange that they are going after small local governments, that probably have little organization and poor record keeping, as far as IS is concerned anyway. So why don't they go after the larger offenders, rather than pick on the small governments? Why don't they go after the 31337 h4x0rz that have CD images of Win 2k and the like on their FTP sites?
RAD on Linux (Score:2)
There really isn't any RAD programming system for Linux (Klyx ain't there yet.), so that means a lot of time and effort for something pretty small.
Au Contrairy!!! Check out RadBuilder 3.0 from Emediat Solutions Inc. [emediat.com]. I really like this RAD platform and have written a couple of client applications. Excellent string manipulations, a complete widget set (with the ability to extend), an integrated IDE, cross-platform with Windows, and, most importantly, comprehensive HTML documentation. Sorry if I sound like too much of a booster, but its sad to see good products fall by the wayside due to a lack of exposure.
On the down side, I've heard that they are going to go Open Source but they are not currently... though it is pretty inexpensive (~ $100 for linux I think)
They have a support site at www.radbuilder.org [radbuilder.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:After Virginia Beach, this shouldn't be news (Score:2)
Mass Audit = change to .net (Score:2)
Microsoft I think believes, "If we want to do something annoying and to take away the privacy of people, do something legal that is worse so that our "new alternative" looks better and is accepted.".
--Brandon
Bullshit (Score:2)
Could Microsoft audit IBM? Sure! Would it bankrupt them? I doubt it highly, knowing how the shop is run there.
Microsoft is now resorting to harassing customers with lawyers to extract profit growths. This is good. It means they're putting themselves increasingly into a very unpopular position with large corporations and governments, which may prompt some of the "victims" to lobby (throw money at) lawmakers.
It's bad for customers, but that's par for the course. Microsoft has never been good for the consumer, I don't expect them to change now.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of licenses... (Score:3)
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Re:Simple solution are often the best. (Score:2)
winblows over Linux.
You mean other than application support? Yeah, it's pretty easy to miss that.
Re:Can microsoft be sued to pay for lost time? (Score:2)
Re:What happened to Microsoft's 'Blind Eye'? (Score:3)
You can also see the attitude change between Gates and Ballmer. Gates, since the doomed hobbiest letter, hasn't ever really sweated if someone somewhere was ripping him off, as long as he knew he'd eventually get paid. On the other hand, rampant MS piracy probably keeps Ballmer awake at night.
Playing Both Ends -- (Score:2)
We have a couple WinME machines where I work and its an accomplishment if they don't crash once or twice during a workday ... but *I* would be the bad guy if I grabbed a NT WKS disk and downgraded to a stable os?
Re:Bullshit (Score:2)
contracts, and SLA agreements on file, yadda yadda. "
You are presuming that all this has no cost. It costs money to keep track of documents it costs money to prove you have the documents. For many companies this could add a several full time staff in and of itself.
Re:I have this same problem. (Score:2)
Re:Rising Costs (Score:4)
- Custom software: Maybe companies have at least a little custom software, usually written for Windows. Some have more. Where I work we have over 3.5 million lines of COBOL code written with Microfocus extensions for Windows. You can't run that on Linux now, there is no compiler and the file formats would change, it would literally be a nightmare to switch. Sure, there's VMWare or Wine, but do you want an emulator managing your mission critical data? I'm talking all the financials, AP/AR/GL, ordering, purchasing, history, EVERYTHING. Well I don't trust it. You don't get away from this until you get to upper-mid sized companies that are using terminal emulation and a single mainframe.
- Small businesses depend on Quick Books, Peach Tree, and other "Small Business" related management software. And no, GNU Cash does not replace it. It can't even generate invoices yet.
- There isn't any decent group ware application for Linux that's not web-based. That means people will be leaving behind their Outlook/NDS/ADS/Notes stuff behind unless they licence some kind of shared server for that. You get practically no savings.
- Most companies don't need to. Lots of companies still run Win95 through 98 or NT3 to NT4. They don't plan on upgrading their Windows licences. When they buy a new computer, it will come with Windows and a new licence anyway, and they're not the type to go off building their own computers and installing OS's. There is no cost since you already payed for it.
So basically you'd need to be a company that only used your computer for web/mail and office, then you might have a relatively smooth transition. Don't forget though, people use windows at home too, and they are familiar with it's tools. Just because Star Office looks similar to word doesn't mean it's the same. There will be things people can't figure out and there will be retraining.As far as your 10,000 user example, I wouldn't want to retraing 10,000 users for anything.
Re:Thanks again CmdrTaco! (Score:2)
Sure you keep track of how many license you own and how many are in use. You think that MS is gonna come and ask you for these number, you're going to tell them, and then they're going to say "Okidoki... Thanks very much, have a nice day!" Fat chance is hell.
What they want is proof. On one hand you'd better have a big room with thousands of those holograms (typically glued on top of a manual) that come with your pre-installed Dell PCs. And (if you read the article) the proof of purchase for everyone of those holograms. On the other hand, you're gonna have to prove that you really have all of these installed machine and not more that you're just not declaring.
Now the whole idea behind an audit is that they're probably going to want to verify the information you provided. That's kind of the idea behind the word "audit". Who knows how they do that, they may walk around in your organization and count machines for all I know...
The point is, regardless on how organized you might be, someone (and probably more than one person) at your company will be busy for a while. Since I assume that person gets paid by your company, that's money your company is spending on completely unproductive work. It is very disruptive - the level of disruptivity might be slightly alleviated if your IT people have their act together, but it will nevertheless be disruptive.
And my last point is that no corporation should have the right to barge in your company and "demand" anything - regardless on how easy it might be to give an answer. The government can't do it (not without "probably cause") why should microsoft be allowed to?
We got m$ screwed (Score:3)
Anyway, if you want to avoid this situation, just pirate everything. In our case, we were trying to do the right thing. We called to get estimates on some exchange licenses. The sales lady asked a bunch of questions... how many clients... do they all need it... how many servers. All the questions seemed innocent enough. In the end, they took our answers, looked at the number of licenses they knew we had, and they decided we needed to buy more.
Re:Nobody is "screwing" anybody! (Score:2)
Microsoft is moving to per seat licences for almost all their new software. This is harder than hell to keep up with, espically if the licencses aren't transferrable.
Don't be suprised if the first
Re:Thanks again CmdrTaco! (Score:2)
Personally, I find Python/TK much easier to develop with than VB. I use it in Windows and Linux. I don't know if there's a GUI IDE for it because it's so easy I've never felt the need to even look for one.
And Python is a much nicer language than Basic.
Re:^^^ IGNORE #66, MISPRINT ^^^ (Score:3)
Is that like installing it twice ?
Sucks to your EULA (Score:4)
these are the reasons I think EULA's are not legal:
They're not avaliable prior to purchase.
No retailer allows the return of software if you don't like the license.
If a retailer *DID* allow the return, MS should bare the cost of that return (restocking fees, shipping etc), but they don't.
A contract is an agreement between two parties ... usually both parties recieve some benifit from the contract ... in the EULA, theres no agreement its "take it or leave it." And the Eula provides no benifit (IE waranty, fitness of purpose) and seeks only to benifit the software company.
Last but not least, a legally enforcable contract has to have a minimum of 3 signatures, the notary and the two parties ... The notary serves several purposes -- she authenticates both parties, can be called upon in a legal dispute, and establishes that both parties are aware of the contents of the contract, which I believe is called [IANAL] "communication." It is my belief that "press f8 to continue" [NT4 installer] is not a sufficent "notary". Can you prove I read and understood the entire agreement then pressed f8 ?
What if I gave someone 5 bucks to install a MS os on my machine ... would I be then bound by the EULA ? I didn't agree to it, someone else did ... is this situation is analgous to purchasing a computer with preinstalled software?
bait and switch (Score:3)
So everybody is clear, DON'T PAY FOR SQL SERVER! (Score:4)
Instead, go download Sybase 11.0.3.3 for Linux or FreeBSD. It works just the same, and it is free for almost all commercial use.
MS SQL server and Sybase were once the same product. MS ODBC drivers work with Sybase, and the SQL syntax is pretty much identical.
If you need support, just upgrade. No, you aren't buying a product with the spectacular benchmarks of SQL Server 2000, but then again, you aren't buying anything at all, so why complain?
Re:Simple solution are often the best. (Score:3)
2) throwing all of your Microsoft holograms in one file cabinet with a sheet of paper attached to each that shows the PC's manufacturer and serial number
And keeping the install disks locked away with the key held by the most anal person in the company. And searching employees on their way in to make sure they don't bring software from home to install, make sure that all software purchases be handled exclusively through the above anal person (no more running to Office Depot with petty cash), having your legal staff study the licenses carefully in a vain attempt to come up with the same interpretation that MS will use, and finally: get audited and screwed anyway. It seems that even if you buy an unlimited site license, MS will argue about what constitutes 'your site'.
On the other hand, Linux and the BSDs all effectively have an unlimited universe wide no questions asked site license.