[Info-vax] openvms licensing

[Kerry Main]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Info-vax [mailto:info-vax-bounces at info-vax.com] On Behalf Of
> johnwallace4--- via Info-vax
> Sent: 19-Feb-16 1:04 PM
> To: info-vax at info-vax.com
> Cc: johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk
> Subject: Re: [New Info-vax] openvms licensing
> 

[snip..]

> 
> In case anyone out there thinks I might be making a fuss over not much
> wrt licensing, have a look at this 34 page MS white paper on how to
> buy Visual Studio, and draw your own conclusion. Search for "Visual
> Studio 2015 Licensing Whitepaper" and you should find it.
> 
> I don't know if it's a particularly bad example, but software development
> is (or used to be) a crucial part of the MS ecosystem.
> 
> Bear in mind that, back in the day, the DECdirect Europe software
> catalogue used to be able to explain most VMS licensing principles
> (standalone, clusterwide, concurrent, named users, etc) in the space
> of three (or less) not very dense pages. And I can still remember
> the basics. No idea of the current HPQ picture though.
> 
> My previous employers' IT staff couldn't agree amongst themselves
> on what the documented MS model meant for the team in which I was
> working, especially in the "laptop based hot desking, with
> exceptions" environment being proposed as the next "strategic IT
> upgrade". Some will recognise this as one of the many cases where
> the IT Department have "gone native" and ended up closer to their
> favourite suppliers than to the needs of the organisation around
> them.
> 
> Worse, the Strategic Sourcing (aka Purchasing) people wouldn't let
> anyone talk officially to a Microsoft reseller with a clue (I have
> dealt with one in the past; they have a copy of the whitepaper above:
> http://www.greymatter.com/documents/pdf/00016402.pdf if the search
> doesn't work for you).
> 
> If you do read the white paper, you'll soon notice that (with a
> handful of largely irrelevant exceptions) a compiler/toolset now
> requires a Visual Studio subscription at Professional or Enterprise
> level- no such thing as a one time purchase. Which seems to be the
> way MS are currently headed in general.
> 
> That's just licensing, of course. Then there's enforcement. Let's
> not go there.
> 
> It's almost enough to make you wonder if MS would rather Windows
> developers moved to gcc/clang, Eclipse, whatever. Maybe on an OS
> other than Windows. Or maybe that's just me.
> 
> Despite all that, this is the stuff many "enterprise" people have
> been choosing in recent years for much of their stuff. This, not
> Apple (except in a tiny number of niche setups). Far more Linux
> than Apple, where I've seen. Sometimes something completely
> different as well, if the IT department understands that one size
> does not always fit all.
> 
> Food for thought?
> 
> Have a lot of fun.

John - agree 100%

Microsoft is getting arrogant and ratcheting up their pricing in a manner 
not unlike DEC and SUN did in the 80's and 90's i.e. company gets popular 
then thinks they can get away with higher prices even when the competition 
is nipping at their heels.

In addition to the complexities you just mentioned, MS is also moving to
core based server pricing from socket based. That is getting huge visibility
within many Customer environments because it is not only extremely
complex, but for Customers with 4 cores in a single socket, they now must
pay quite a bit more for the same license they used to have. Most servers
now come with at least 4 cores.

At least VSI and HP have stayed with socket based pricing.

Course, I think it's great MS is doing this because it will make it easier for
VSI to differentiate themselves from MS - especially if VSI comes out with
a drop dead simple subscription licensing scheme option based on # of OS 
host instances combined with a tier scheme - something like Dev, Work-
station, Dept and Enterprise (or something similar).

:-)

Regards,

Kerry Main
Kerry dot main at starkgaming dot com