MS Drops Licensing Restrictions from Web Server 2008 226
Channel Guy writes "According to a report from CRN, Microsoft plans to allow users of the Web Server SKU in Windows Server 2008 to 'run any type of database software with no limit on the number of users, provided they deploy it as an Internet-facing front-end server.' The previous limit was 50 users. Microsoft's partners expect the changes to go a long way toward making Windows Web Server 2008 more competitive with the LAMP stack, against which Microsoft has been making headway in recent months."
Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
With Windows Web Server 2008 you'll still have to pay for the OS. With LAMP it's free.
Windows Server 2008 is the server version of Vista. Will it have the same licensing model? Will this unlimited Windows Web Server be available only in the Ultimate version?
In any case, this shows that Microsoft is getting desperate, and even with this I don't think they'll get any market share from LAMP.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Still, LAMP is free, so unless they're going to start giving away Server 2008, they can keep it.
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:4, Informative)
I have to take issue with this statement.
Let us assume a LAMP stack which comes via a support subscription (eg. RHEL). And lets assume variables such as customer support and pricing are equal, I would still go with the LAMP stack. I have experience with both, and I find LAMP to be easier to use yet much more versatile. A Microsoft web stack can definitely get the job done... but I find things easier to accomplish with LAMP -- I definitely don't work with Microsoft stacks without getting paid for it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with your logic but MS doesn't do logic... they do licenses and IP... so all of their technology is set up on the premise that they need you to buy lots of licenses to do 'anything'...
though when you do cough up enough money, their integrated suites of software are pretty useful, as long as you need to do exactly what the software is capable of and nothing else.
As soon as you need to do something else, you'll either have to hire an extremely over-priced development firm, a team of developers and all the overhead of a new department - or wait until MS decides that enough of your peers want to buy the thing you need for it to be profitable to them.
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You just can have a linux box with apache doing reverse proxy and caching in front of it, and
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you've alluded to the most interesting part of this story: Microsoft is being forced to lower their prices (or even eliminate them) in order to compete with free software. This isn't a new phenomenon, of course -- they haven't been able to charge for IIS or IE, for example, due to competition from free software -- but it seems that it is happening frequently.
If I had stock in MSFT, I would start selling it once they announce that they've made any significant reduction in the cost of MS Office; it's one of the biggest cash cows for the company, and any sign of weakness in that space is their worst nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not exactly a fair comparison. While Windows Server 2008 is the same codebase as Windows Vista, it's not "just" the server version of Vista. By that same rationale, Windows Server 2003 was "just" the server version of Windows XP. However Windows Server 2003 had different SKUs than XP with different licensing models, and you can
Re: (Score:2)
If its the same codebase and the only difference is that with one 'version' you get licenced to tie your shoelaces with your left hand and with the other one you get licenced to allow your mother to tie your shoelaces or on the gripping hand you can get another licence that costs 20x more which allows anybody in your family to do the same, then I say that you'
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For what it's worth, I agree with you. On the other hand, that's what Microsoft uses to refer to the various versions of a product (they seem to alternate between "SKU" and "Edition" with no rhyme or reason why one word is used over the other), so that's what I used to refer to them. I
For most of those hosting, the cost is negligable (Score:5, Interesting)
There was notable uptake in MSFT market share with the original release of Web Edition--just after the last time MSFT flirted with 1/3 market share they started losing it rapidly again, and its release temporarily kept them in the 30% range before it dropped back down to the low 20s for a long time. Win2k3 Web Server was found to be well suited to "parking pages" and "basic hosting services" for big-time web hosting companies--for those sites that are static and have little to no e-commerce and content-management requirements.
MSFT ran into a wall however because Web Edition has a lot of sometimes-severe limitations. Notably there are restrictions on number of database users and other back-end and connectivity issues that required CALs or other VERY EXPENSIVE ($5000 and up) licensing. For example, you are limited to workgroup security only, with only 10 SMB connections (something like XP Home Edition's capabilities in terms of Windows networking) so if Windows Networking is used to maintain the files on a host of a large number of little sites you can hit a snag there. Web Edition also is not permitted to work with SharePoint services, or use Rights Management services either. So, it looks attractive to start with, but when you want to do anything more useful than host a bunch of "electronic brochures" or domain parking then MSFT wants to rape your wallet.
As for your query, despite the common codebase with Vista, the Server product line is not likely to bear any resemblance to the Vista product line. the Server OSes maintain the "model year" designation they've had since 2000. There will be no "basic/premium/business/ultimate"; it will merely evolve from the product line since 2000: standard/enterprise/datacentre/SBS/Web, with "File server" and "Medium business" targeted editions thrown in as new choices. The "File Server" edition will be a purpose-built, reduced-cost version targeted at Linux/BSD with Samba installs no doubt. Just as always, I expect the web server will be available on the same editions as in 2003, but will only be "unlimited" if you buy the cheap web edition or spend thousands on "external connector licenses" or CALs.
Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab (Score:2, Funny)
Last time I checked, Slashdot [slashdot.org] was still using Linux.
So... Is it a hobby? Or a small-time outfit? :-D
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love to see someone do something on the scale of google and *NOT* use Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Point seems have been missed here (Score:4, Interesting)
---->point
(you)
----------
Actually, yes it was both when it started. Slashdot started as "Chips and Dips", Malda's personal website in 1997. Soon after he and a few buddies started writing a bit of Perl code to allow for discussion and moderation around the articles they posted. It was, in that brief early time exactly that: a small-time hobbyist outfit.
Of course now it is the mother of all sites and corporately owned. And in fact, Sourceforge Incorporated probably does indeed consider $400 to be chump change. The savings in licensing costs very long ago ceased to be relevant in the choice to use Linux and Apache for Slashdot. Consider these observations:
1) Slashdot STARTED as a "small time hobby outfit" which made the initial choice of Linux, Apache and Perl the only real choice when cost WAS a factor. Linux or FreeBSD were the only vialble and affordable OS options as well, at a time when expensive Solaris was closed-server-OS king.
2) Slashdot started in 1997. Back then MS Windows NT Server and IIS sucked worse than a $2 hooker. Apache was king and all the rest were expensive, or sucked or both. Linux and Apache could take a daily slashdotting on a couple of boxes whereas Windows NT would have to reboot daily and would require a full height rack packed with server gear to do the same.
3) if it aint broke don't fix it--there is a lot of time and effort put into the perl code and MySQL database that is used in slashcode. When they needed to handle the load they deployed it over mod_perl. To move to Windows would require a lot of work to completely rewrite the app, or else tons of frustration dealing with putting Apache and nod_perl onto Windows.
4) Politics. Slashdot is news for NERDS. Windows is pointy-haired-boss/MCSE-dweeb stuff. Linux and BSD and Apache and other Free software is "elite". Slashdot is also all about Free software as The Right Thing to Do. WHy would an advocate of open source put any effort into deploying its premiere site using closed tools, even if it were cheaper or had technical advantages? It'd be like Microsoft migrating servers to Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So what you're saying is that slashdot was designed to withstand a slashdotting? Now that's forward thinking!
Funny thing about that kind of logic... (Score:2)
Re:For most of those hosting, the cost is negligab (Score:3, Insightful)
That is just the tip of the Microsoft corporate licensing nightmare. At my government agency employer, we only use Linux for all our web servers. Why? Because we are developers and we want to drop a web/database/file/email/proxy/printer/whatever server wherever it is needed without being bogged down in a sea of Microsoft red tape.
GPL means one simple licence: use it on any machine you want, whenever you want. Absolute
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying that Server 2003 is the server version of XP.
In addition, the article is about the licensing model of the web-server version of server 2008. No cals, just a flat fee, etc.
There's no concept of an 'ultimate version' on the web-server version of the server 2008.
The web-edition is what version it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Yeah, it will probably take a bit longer to get that Samba domain controller rolled out for accounting, but guess what, your licensing fees forever is $0.00."
Let's say the license for that domain controller is $500. And you cost your employer the typical IT salary + benefits of $100,000 a year -- about $50 an hour. If it takes you more than ten hours to setup the Samba domain controller, it's a bad idea. As is if it takes more than ten hours extra to configure it, over the lifetime of the domain controller. (The Auditor's laptop takes an extra hour of your time to work with Samba? you need to spend a week to train your replacement when you leave?)
After ini
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On another note, I was helping a kid who went through a vocational school
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, but Windows costs more than the double of what Linux costs:
So, while Linux is not gratis, it's still much cheaper than Windows. Especially for Web systems such as LAMP, most distributions allow you to install it as easily as one command (or even a graphical installer), and you can even download a virtual machine [vmware.com] that you can use as a development or testing environment without even having to install anything.
If there is one thing that still can be cheaper in Windows, is that you can hire a Windows administrator for cheap, while a Linux administrator would probably require a higher pay. But this is changing with the popularization of Linux, there are more Linux admins in the market today. Another point is that you get what you pay for, the cheap Windows administrator probably won't do that good a job, and if you want quality you'll probably have to pay as much as you would pay to a good Linux administrator anyway.
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.jwz.org/doc/linux.html [jwz.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not! But, in my opinion, his quote was used in a context to suggest just that.
That or my sarcasm sensor is broken... :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Windows would still suck even if free. (Score:2)
Linux admins aren't expensive. I can pretty easily find someone that's reasonably experienced and willing to work for
I call BS (Score:2)
Wrong Linux requires more because Linux has more tweaks and settings on how admins want it. What Linux has over Windows is the ability to fit into the environment more easily. Yet to make that fit takes more time.
>Windows has as much or more updating and upgrading hurdles as Linux.
Wrong Windows is easier updated. You don't know what you are getting, but it is easy to update. Linux again has the ability to tune and tweak the updates.
>If you
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if they were required for basic function would that be considered "more administration". In fact, usually this means less administration because you can set up Linux in a way that suits your environment faster than Windows, which rarely-if-at-all will be able to do so. If you're willing to live with the Windows feature subset, then you definitely don't have any more administration to do. But in that case you
Re:I call BS (Score:4, Informative)
SBS Premium includes SQL Server 2005 Workgroup Edition, Exchange Server 2003, and runs on a single machine. SBS CALs are also valid for other Windows Server 2003 servers in your network, e.G. if you would've bought a Web Edition machine, you wouldn't need to purchase any CALs and run it either against a local SQL Server Express instance or against the Workgroup Edition on the SBS Server.
Back in 2004, Office Communication Server 2007 wasn't released, but right now it's a full blown voip solution from Microsoft (which works pretty well, and integrates nicely). It isn't expensive either, at around 1000US$ per Server, and around 20US$ per CAL.
I don't intend to change your mind, just wanted to show you that the stuff isn't as expensive as you're trying to make it. Also, if you're a development shop that sells application based on Microsoft Windows, you can apply to become an MS Partner, which costs around 1500 US$ per year, and gives you all the licenses you might want (for internal production use), plus an MSDN subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And Windows ME sucked as well. A lot of the products that Microsoft was making in the late '90s and early 2000s were pretty bad. It's been over six years for NIMDA, and almost eight for ILOVEYOU. Let it go. If you're going to complain, complain about the latest version.
The other reason (se
Not to mention hardware resource requirements (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't want windows, so we use Linux. We don't find Windows an acceptable platform for servers, other than file-servers and for administration of Windows clients.
We are the customers.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And Windows Server 2008 Web Edition is only $400 if your time has no value.
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Informative)
By hard earned experience with Apple server products I have learned that you can't trust them to support their products over long times. The all of a sudden discontinues products without any resonable migraton paths to the successr, if there even is a successor. E.g. they dicontiued A/UX and replaced with an Apple version of AIX that they then dropped totally in just a couple of years.
When they distribute updates they have more than once totally destroyed, customized settings, and the open source software that comes with the server version of MacOS-X is often incomplete or lacking in functionality compared to the same software on Linux or Solaris.
Chosing between Windows and Mac, I would choose Mac any day. MacOS-X is at least simple to use.
Re:Still have to pay for the OS (Score:5, Funny)
I hear they've got the sewing market all stitched up, though.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The current 10.5 Server has much improved over 10.4. As in 10.4 you still had to use some command line to do advanced stuff, now a lot of that is moved into t
Apache responds (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
increase the allowed number of users to googolplex + 1
That would constitute a decrease *and* be less than the Microsoft offering. You clearly meant infinity*2.
Seriously, to what extent was Netcraft's status gamed by microsoft ala that situation where Microsoft got their platform as the return for ungodly numbers of parked domains vs. how much of reflects an actual legitimate uptake of their platform in the face of Apache? I haven't seen any technical/logistic reason for them to be suddenly gaining ground (maybe this move would have some impact), so I was wo
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess it couldn't possibly be because IIS6 is freakin' fast and memory-efficient? It also couldn't have anything to do with the great
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the servers that we run in production do not announce they run apache, but I don't know of any way of turning this off in IIS.
It's not like 2005 came around and suddenly people stopped using Apache. There must be an explanation for the massive decline in Netcraft's charts
The downside... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The downside... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The downside... (Score:4, Funny)
I swear it was in the article. Why are you all looking at me? What?!
Clearly.... (Score:2)
Google (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what percent of the netcraft's MS number is MS machines.
Re:Google (Score:5, Informative)
The recent decline in IIS and gain by apache is almost entirely myspace to facebook migration.
The other big factors are godaddy parking is IIS, most other parking domains are apache, and then there is the relatively small number of sites which are all the sites that generate all the content that you would actually want to connect to the internet for.
Netcraft is has a bit of a problem with figuring out what is a website. Is a myspace profile a website? No, but what if someone is running a music site off of their myspace profile and have it branded and put real effort into and is its own destination?
Do geocities accounts count as websites? most of them did get counted and when geocities popularity waned so did BSDs market share.
What if you wild card a domain name and have a script generate unique content for almost every possible hostname, and submitted tens of thousands of the hostnames of that server to netcraft? How many websites would that be? Some creative spamming by Microsoft or their enemies would make netcraft statistics pretty meaningless. Also Netcraft only reports on the front facing server which grossly understates zope and tomcats presence.
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and netcraft website counts.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's before we consider factors like "what do these numbers mean anyway?".
Consider this: for a given large number of websites, running on a hosting provider, then the total number of Windows servers required to host those sites is considerably larger than the total number of Linux-based servers required to host those same sites (all running on identical hardware), because Linux is simply more hardware-efficient. So we would naturally e
Re: (Score:2)
This is Slashdot. The bar for Windows success is vastly higher than the bar for Linux success, whether it deserves to be or not. Don't like the statistics? Change the definition of the statistics so that they are painted in the light you prefer. After all, that's what Microsoft would do, right?
You seem to dislike their definition of a website. But what the survey is really telling you is which web server is being used to serve unique content on the web. Whether one server serves a million pages or a
Re: (Score:2)
Technically correct, but I think it could benefit from further clarification.
Netcraft's numbers tell you which piece of software is being used to provide web service on a unique hostname.
But with modules like Dynamic Mass Virtual Hosting [apache.org] (and whatever the equivalent is on IIS), it is trivially easy f
Re: (Score:2)
That methodology is from July 2000. If you have been following the survey for the last several years you would know that a large percentage of the sites currently counted are on blogger.com, livejournal.com myspace.com and facebook.com. They have been collecting comments and tweaking there survey for over seven years since that methodology was posted.
What I would find much more interesting is a sharepoint, drupal, joomla, plone, handcoded html, frontpage, ora
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, just 7.39% of the servers that anyone cares about.
Eight different versions of Windows Server (Score:5, Informative)
There are at least eight different "versions" of Windows Server 2008: [pcworld.com], depending on what features are crippled:
This change only affects the crippling level on #8.
Re: Eight different versions of Windows Server (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems strange they'd actually bother to sell separate "Hyper-V" and "non Hyper-V" products, given how little they intend to charge for it and that they intend to sell it separately anyway.
Microsoft, however, also plans to sell Hyper-V directly to corporate users who could wipe a server clean and install Hyper-V Server, which is priced at $28 and allows an unlimited number of virtual machines on a single box.
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/111207-microsoft-virtualization-server.html [networkworld.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They wanted to make it free, but feared to run afoul of the monopoly issues, by undercutting/bundling the product that competes with vmware, etc.
This way, its nearly free, but not really free.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only 8? At least they have been consistent with server OS versions.
Windows XP: 2 versions
Windows 2003 Server: 8 versions
Windows Vista: 6 versions
Windows 2008 Server: 8 versions
If the pattern holds up, it will be like this:
Windows 7: 18 versions
Re:Eight different versions of Windows Server (Score:5, Funny)
That means there will be either 8 or 9 editions of Windows 7, depending on weather it is a geometric or arithmetic progression.
If we attempt to count Windows 2000 (1 desktop, 3 server editions, according to Wikipedia), then we get 1, 4, 6 for desktop versions and a resulting polynomial formula of 0.5(x^2)+4.5x-3 (where x is 1 for 2000, 2 for XP and 3 for Vista) meaning Windows 7 will have (if we take x as 4) 23 editions.
If we instead use x=version no. (5 for 2000, 5.1 for XP and 6 for Vista) then we get the formula -27.778(x^2)+310.56x-857.33 then Windows 7 would have -44.532 editions.
For servers, 1, 2, 3 numbering gives a formula of -2.5(x^2)+12.5x-7 with Sever 7 having 3 editions. With version numbering (and assuming that Server 2008 releases with a 6.0 version number), we get -25(x^2)+280x-772 and Server 7 having -37 editions (assuming it has 7.0 version number).
However, it is best to disregard formulas with negative x^2 coefficients, since they will all eventually result in negative values, therefore 23 versions of Windows 7 seems the most reasonable answer here, unless we take negative edition counts as complete Microsoft failure (CMF).
Why Netcraft? (Score:3, Informative)
Why do they continue to quote Netcraft when http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/200712/index.html [securityspace.com] has always put Apache ahead of windows? Is it that Netcraft is more of an authority than Security Space.
Back to the topic...I think Microsoft wants to claim bragging rights having come from very far behind when compared to Apache.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a really reliable source if they put Apache ahead of windows. Apache ahead of IIS wouldn't be so much apples and oranges ;)
Them, them, eff them (Score:2)
Microsoft and the Command Line ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose Gates had had a little more vision, realized that the CLI still had a place in the world, and thrown a billion or two into DOS development? Suppose Microsoft had turned DOS into a real contender for the server room, maybe tacking a CLI and some utilities on top of the NT Kernel? They could have called it MS-DOS/NT. Sure, it wouldn't be DOS as we all knew and loved it (hah) but then they wouldn't have been caught flat-footed when people started assembling hundreds and thousands of computers into racks and connecting them to the Internet.
DOS never worked well for multitasking (Score:2)
The closest DOS came to multitasking was with Desqview and DoubleDOS, both suffering from the "640k is enough for anyone" limits.
Your PC is doing a lot of stuff at the "same" time,
internet-facing and Microsoft Server? (Score:2, Interesting)
If i use MS Server to face the internet, then i risk getting hacked almost on a daily basis from some script kiddie...
if i don't use it, i need to pay Microsoft huge licensing fees and since i can't afford to pay the extortion, i risk being reported to BSA...
On a totally-different topic, anyone using Microsoft server for their internet-facing tasks without adequate (PhD equipped) hardening, DOES deserve the hacking they get....
Re: (Score:2)
IIS6 may be solid and so on but if the web sites it hosts get hacked then it is still insecure...?
"The web site has been hacked", "yes but IIE6 is still secure...."
Most of these are down to the insane security model of windows, note the Apache web sites that are most often hacked are the ones running on windows
Re: (Score:2)
That's my point. By that token IIS6 core is secure. Prove me wrong, mod me flamebait if you want, but it doesn't change the irrefutable fact IIS6 is secure. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary of course.
Christ, even Slashdot had an article mentioning IIS6 never having had any exploits for it. I'll find it if you
It's All About Control (Score:5, Interesting)
At present there are many different web servers in use today and it was something I took for granted. I am a heavy Internet user and when I am visiting web sites I never give a second thought about what server it is running on - everything *usually* works within my browser.
Do you know why?
These web servers follow *open standards* using standard protocols and published specifications.
Now imagine if Microsoft dominated the web server market. They will have a commanding share of the OS, web browser and server market. Once this is in place then you just know these 'standards' will drift away and eventually rely on *Microsoft* standards.
The seamless nature of browsing the internet will eventually disappear.
Eventually Microsoft's servers would be modified to serve content to 'Explorer' only - if you use a different browser you would get a 'blank' screen or message stating 'this site is best viewed in Internet Explorer'.
Internet Explorer would exhibit the same behavior, if it detected a non-Microsoft server again a message would appear instead of the web-site informing the user that the site is unavailable or incompatible.
If you're not running Microsoft Explorer your pages won't render properly - users complain & companies get nervous.
If you're not running a Microsoft server stack your pages won't be served properly - users complain & companies get nervous.
Microsoft become the de-facto standard because it will be *perceived* as the most conservative and least risky option.
If you run your own business you can look forward to ever-increasing overheads.
The barrier to entry will again be high, Microsoft and their many partners are set to earn *huge* revenues and of course any competition will be extinguished.
Microsoft has an abundance of patience and it will probably take years for this to happen.
The Internet as you know it will become bland, colourless, safe, corporation and media friendly.
Embrace, Extend & Extinguish.
It's a sad way of doing business, if they were actually respectful and *co-operate* with IT industry they can still be a successful company without having to destroy everthing.
Re: Suspicious. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Thank you for telling us without using profanity, or threatening to beat anybody up
Re:so what (Score:4, Funny)
That's Mr. Lysdexic to you, buddy.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft has taken yet another page from the *NIX play book and constructed a model called "Server Core" for 2008:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/servercore.mspx [microsoft.com]
This is essentially an ultra-small footprint server installation to run server apps on top of it, it doesnt even have a window manager- you boot directly to the "cmd.exe" prompt.
Gee where have we seen this before- oh i know it started back in the 70s...