New MS Licencing Changes

[davidbarclay]

So, what are everyone's thoughts? What do you intend to do, if anything?

For those how missed it, Microsoft laced up the gloves and threw the first big punch yesterday. Vmware's response is here:

http://www.vmware.com/solutions/whitepapers/msoft_licensing_wp.html

I expect this thread to be a long one, so let's leave off the MS bashing and discuss what we can do about it and how we can adjust our strategies.

I am mostly concerned about the vMotion implications and how best to MS licence a solution.

Dave

[TomHowarth]

this is tried and tested MS. their bullying and scare moungering has been going on for over 20 years now. it is endemic at all levels of their corporate phyke

[Craig_Baltzer]

There's a fundamental difference between providing

support at different levels like response time and

hours of operation versus providing a certain

category of support (in this case for a particular

setup).

If they make a categorical decisions to support

virtualization (which they did) they should support

it at all levels.

Sort of like VMware supporting Solaris... they don't

support it just for Platinum support memebers and not

for Gold.

So if "virtualization is virtualization", why does VMware only support Workstation @ the per incident and silver level, but ESX at the Gold and above? Both are virtualization technologies so both should be supported at all levels of support...

Looking at it another way, fact is that ESX virtualization and MS Virtual Server virtualization are not the same "thing" at all, so its hard to see how any "categorical" support is possible; that's sort of like saying that an application that "supports UNIX" must mean that vendor meant that it runs on every UNIX version ever made.

The truth is that "virtualization" is not all the same and complexity matters as providing support for more complexity costs more money, and no vendor is going to take on additional complexity at their "lowest priced" support tier...

#2 Prohibitions on Running MS VMs on 3rd party

virtualization - This references a VM built by MS,

and surprise-surprise it is built to run on MS VS

and

says that MS VS. If I look at the pre-built VMs

that

VMware has up on the site, they require VMware

Player

or better. If I apply the same logic as the VMware

paper, I'd expect to see VMware posting images

that

work on MS Virtual Server/Virtual PC, Xen, etc.

Not...

This could actually fly as an argument if MS wasn't

in a monopoly or dominant situation. A vendor can

make a decision only to support Firefox or IE or

whaver for their product. However, because MS is in

such a powerful position they can leverage their

monopoly power to accomplish other goals, namely, to

prevent people from using VMware.

The end result is:

1) I run Exchange

2) I can't get a support commitment from MS about

Exchange 2007 in VMware

3) I won't run it VMware

Two different topics all together. My original was "MS builds VHDs of their products and says you need to run them on VS" and that VMware does the same thing for their "prebuilt VMDKs" so if you're fine with what VMware is doing, you should be fine with what MS is doing.

This argument you've raised is off on the support tangent again, and whether MS will support Exchange when running on VMware. They provide support on a "commercially reasonable effort". Some folks here for some reason think that this means nothing, and that when you call on a problem the first question is "Are you runnning on VMware?" and if you said "yes" the next thing you'll hear is dial-tone. That's not the way it works no matter what the sales guy in the bar says...

You'll always have people that are "jumpy" about particular support arrangements; some people only by IBM or HP because of the big "services" organization they have and won't buy Dell because they don't (the old "no one ever got fired for buying IBM"). Others take a more pragmatic view and look at the benefits and risks, then decide.

[davidbarclay]

One thing I know is that we are going to continue to use VMotion whenever

and as often as I feel like, regardless of what MS says.

I agree, but what if after legal disputes VMware are force to remove/limit/change vMotion for MS instances?

Dave

[jasonboche]

One thing I know is that we are going to continue

to use VMotion whenever

and as often as I feel like, regardless of what MS

says.

I agree, but what if after legal disputes VMware are

force to remove/limit/change vMotion for MS

instances?

Dave

We stay on VirtualCenter 2.0.1 and ESX 3.0.1 forever.

[Craig_Baltzer]

Here I quote Novell Netware - this was a superior

product to NT.51 and NT40. we know who won that

battle. NDS is a superior directory fact, ADS won.

he who controls the board will win the day. just

because a product is technically superior, doe not

mean that it will win a war.

Netware was superior to NT for file/print, inferior for running apps. People wanted to run apps, so NT came in the door. Then they asked "is Netware superior enough for file/print to keep it around and spend the extra $$$ when I already have it with my application platform?". Some answered "yes" and continued on with Netware, others said "no" and phased it out. You're absolutely right that technical superiority in one area does not win the war...

The USA was technologically superior to Vietnam, but

the VC won the war. this is a hearts and minds war.

VMware need to win the Board and make their argument

pervasive. if this means cutting prices so be it.

Definitely! Mindshare is important, and a crisp message that addresses what "the business" wants to do. VMware needs to act like a big company that can solve problems, and I think they're doing that now with the products they're rolling out, and the sales organization and partners are getting the message out. Pricing is a barrier that needs to come down. What they don't need is to turn into another Real (the RealPlayer guys) that can't talk about anything other than how they're getting screwed over by "the man"...

They also need to re visit their education stance

etc.

Absolutely! And their partner stance needs an overhaul. Coming from the consulting world when I can get my company signed up as an MS partner and get all the software I need to run my business, unlimited demo licenses, automatic beta participation, joint marketing, etc. all for < $2K a year, while VMware wants me to pay $5K+ just to get in the door (and $1200 a consultant after that), then they aren't helping themselves...

each time MS bring out a new version of SQL they take

a greater slice of Oracles user base. they are

eating them from the bottom up.

Agreed that Oracle may be seeing some loses, however this again comes back to listening to the customer and respecting their business. The folks that we see even thinking about going from Oracle to SQL Server are typically PO'd with the Oracle pricing and licensing model. After a bit of a false start by holding onto GSX at $5K+ with ESX at $15K+ I think VMware have been very quick on their feet with VMware Server, Virtual Center that works with VMware Server, etc. to "plug up" that bottom "hole" that they had in the product line. Couple that with introducing VMware Player and someone in product planning and marketing has their head on straight and knows how to play the game...

WCHL certified hardware ( VMWare ESX does in reality

run on this) all the constituant parts of a VM are

certified hardware and have authorised Microsoft

drivers.

None of the virtualization environment base hardware is certified, only the drivers that install in the guest VM. If VMware wanted to put pressure on MS to provide support, I can't think of a better way than to submit ESX3 for certification as a "server" and a "workstation". Its a "win-win" either way; if they get certified then they're supported by MS, if MS refuses they can say they've tried and have something real to complain about...

partially agree, MS can afford to give away their

Virtualisation products for free as they are not core

their core business is Operation systems and

productivity applications. this is the same tactic

that they used with Netscape.

Absolutely agree that the base virtualization layer may not be anyone's "core business"; remember in the old days when you had to buy a driver for a piece of hardware? Not much of a market for printer drivers anymore...

VMware is doing great selling ESX, VirtualCenter, Lab Manager and has a host of other cool stuff in the hopper I'm sure. VirtualCenter for VMware Server is a great positioning move, and a lesson on how to turn "free" into "money".

Netscape on the other hand was a failed business model, expecting that people would pay for something that had been free (Mozilla, etc.). Their potential money was in the server side but instead got hung up on "40 million copies @ $40 a copy) for the browser which was never going to happen anyway.

the only reason that Citrix is still around is

because they screwed MS at their own game and

licenesd the WTS extension to them.

Citrix is around because, like VMware, they are figuring out where the money is and how to differentiate from an "base level" offering that looks similar. Their application deployment technology is great, and their management and farm environment concepts are far more advanced than MS Terminal Services. Its a whole different market, just like ESX3 is a whole different market from MS Virtual Server...

[Anders]

And who needed TCP/IP when you had IPX?

Ahh! Routing IPX, what a joy! Brings tears to my eyes thinking about it...

\- Anders

[Craig_Baltzer]

I disagree.

Novell got into desktop arena as an atttempt to stave

of vicious competion from MS. and in an attempt to

provide true choice of the comsumer.

Novell got into the deskop arena because Ray Noorda got big dreams and thought he could take on MS in an area where they were strong (his quote of the day was he would "crush" Microsoft). He was also sucked into it by the "hearts and minds' argument from another Utah company (WordPerfect) that had lost its way and was going down.

MS just under cut them as usual as they were making

enough money from the Desktop OS to enable them to do

so. office 4 and 95 were practically given away.

Well everyone has their view on how MS Office got in the door, but I was unfortuante enough to be working in WP shops at the time and listening to WP reps make excuses on why they weren't supporting Windows ("DOS is the platform for word processing, Windows is for drawing apps), and why that their printer drivers didn't support Postscript (on the Apple LaserWriter) because no one wanted to print in anything except Courier anyway. Then when they finally got dragged kicking and screaming to make a Windows version, you might as well have linked the "Wordperfect" icon on your desktop to the "Dr. Watson" app because you'd be seeing it soon enough anyway. Oh, and remember the "WordPerfect print drivers" you installed instead of using the Windows printing support because everyone "knew" that you couldn't get "anything" to print well with those Windows print drivers. Another example of a company getting "fat" and not listening to its customers anymore...

Anyway, we're well off topic here and something prob. more worthy of a conversation over a few at the pub rather than on VMware's nickel

[jurajfox]

I don't necessarily think these arguments are not valid however we have to look at them in the broader context...specifically in place of monopoly and anti-trust.

It's very simple really... what is Microsoft trying to accomplish by allowing Windows Vista, Windows Server, Exchange etc.... to run on Virtual Server and not in VMware?

They are leveraging their dominant or monopoly power in one market to gain advantage in another market. This is what the Netscape, Windows media players et al. lawsuits/controversies were all about.

Up to this point Microsoft has been fairly good with their licensing terms... they had something along the lines like you can use this in "Virtual Server or other virtualization technologies" in their volume licensing and so on.

The fact that they are clamping down on this indicates that they are becoming aware of the VMware threat more than anything else.

[davidbarclay]

I was sent a good FAQ PDF by VMware yesterday.

Microsoft_Licensing_&_Support_FAQ_27Feb2007.pdf

I can't find it online though so can't post a link. VMware, can you post the link for the benefit of all?

Here is the summary:

Questions covered in this FAQ:

Licensing-related

\- Are customers licensed to run multiple instances of Windows Server 2003 in VMware virtual machines on products like VMware Server and ESX Server?

\- Does Microsoft have similar licensing agreements for SQL Server to take advantage of

virtualized environments?

\- What is Microsofts licensing policy for client PC (desktop PCs and notebooks) operating

systems like Windows XP and Windows Vista running in a VM?

\- What is Microsofts license policy for OS instances in inactive or stored virtual machines?

\- Are Windows OS and server applications portable and how does VMotion fit into Microsoft licensing policies?

\- Are Microsoft applications in virtual machines licensed per physical processor or per virtual processor?

\- Where can I find other reference materials from Microsoft to further clarify their licensing policies?

Support-related

\- What support does Microsoft provide to customers for Microsoft applications running in a VMware virtual machine?

\- Do Microsoft applications get better support when running in a Microsoft virtualization production (ex. Virtual Server 2005) vs. a VMware product?

\- Are Microsoft Exchange and SQL Server supported by Microsoft when running with non-Microsoft hardware virtualization software, such as VMware Infrastructure 3?

\- Is Microsoft Cluster Services (MSCS) supported for VMware ESX Server 3.0.1 for Windows Server 2003 SP1 and Windows Server 2003 R2 guest operating systems?

Dave

Message was edited by:

davidbarclay - cleaned up paste of summary

[kimono]

They are leveraging their dominant or monopoly power

in one market to gain advantage in another market.

This is what the Netscape, Windows media players et

al. lawsuits/controversies were all about.

It's corporate jealousy ain't it. MS have probably tied up a bunch of programmers and fed them nothing bit Nutri Grain until they figured out how to write their own Vmotion, but they can't do it. They probably tried to buy Vmware at some point, but that attempt failed too. So instead they hired a bunch more of those "business analyst" and legal types to come up with some smart new licensing scheme that says innovation is "no longer supported by Microsoft".

grrrr. The whole thing makes my blood boil.

[Craig_Baltzer]

It's very simple really... what is Microsoft trying

to accomplish by allowing Windows Vista, Windows

Server, Exchange etc.... to run on Virtual Server and

not in VMware?

The fact that they are clamping down on this

indicates that they are becoming aware of the VMware

threat more than anything else.

It's very simple really... what is Microsoft trying

to accomplish by allowing Windows Vista, Windows

Server, Exchange etc.... to run on Virtual Server and

not in VMware?

Can you point me to a document from MS that says they won't "allow" Windows Server, Exchange, etc. not to run on VMware but will on Virtual Server? I've seen the following:

\* MS won't allow the "home" versions of Vista to run on "any" virtualization (MS, VMware, etc). Since this is a common rule for all virtualization there is no VMware specific issue here

\* MS will only allow server licenses to be reassigned every 90 days for volume license customers. This applies to "any" virtualization (MS, VMware, etc) or physical hardware. Since this is a common rule for all virtualization there is no VMware specific issue here

\* MS will provide "commercial best effort" support on VMware to Premier customers (KB897615)

I keep seeing this "MS won't allow software xxx to run on VMware" stuff in messages and inferences that the restrictions don't apply to MS Virtual Server but can't seem to find any MS doc that says that. Does someone have a link to one, or is this just "viral growth and extrapolation" of someone's understanding of something they heard once?

[jurajfox]

Again, I don't think you're getting the nuanced and very clever way in which Microsoft's strategy is coming into play regarding VMware. They obviously can't go out and post a KB article saying that none of their products will be supported or not "allowed" on VMware - that would be a blatant anti-trust case in the making.

What they can do is create an environment where it becomes impossible and/or inconvenient to run VMware rather than their own virtualizaiton product.

I'll give you a very real scenario:

1) When I run MBSA on Exchange 2003 I get a big red Critical warning that this is running on VMware. When it's Exchange 2003 is running on Virtual Server there is no such warning. No big issue for me but this will freak out many other folks, especially non-technical types.

2) Exchange 2007 will not be supported in a virtual environment until Virtual Server supports 64 bit operating systems. This is directly from MS's Scott Schnoll, on his Exchange, blog. Again the question is why would MS not support Exchange in a virtual environmnet until their own virtualization product is ready?

3) As cited in the orignal post when you fire up a VHD on Virtual Server it runs fine... but on VMware you get issues. So if I want to test out Exchange 2007 in one of these VHD formats that MS distributes you can't run it on VMware. You have to use Virtual Server to test it out.

For a customer who is using Exchange and VMware this may create a very strong incentive to move to MS's Virtual Server not because of Virtual Server's inherent technical merits but because of these other pressures.

Let's go back to the summary from the original VMware article. These are two main themes I see it:

1) Microsoft is trying to restrict customers’ flexibility and freedom to choose virtualization software by limiting who can run their software and how they can run it.

2) Microsoft is leveraging its ownership of the market leading operating system and numerous applications that are market leaders in their respective categories (Exchange, SQL Server, Active Directory) to drive customers to use Microsoft virtualization products.

So I assume you diasgree with these two tenents absolutely?

[Quantum]

>> The end result is:

>> 1) I run Exchange

>> 2) I can't get a support commitment from MS about

Exchange 2007 in VMware

>> 3) I won't run it VMware

That is kind of a bad example, do you really want

your exchange servers running on ESX? Even with

direct mapped lun's?

Uh... try replacing Exchange 2007 with something like Windows Server 2003 R2[/b]. Would that be a better example?

[GBromage]

>> The end result is:

>> 1) I run Exchange

>> 2) I can't get a support commitment from MS about

>> Exchange 2007 in VMware

> >> 3) I won't run it VMware

>

> That is kind of a bad example, do you really want

> your exchange servers running on ESX? Even with

> direct mapped lun's?

In my case, yes, I sometimes do.

My experiences with Exchange is that doesn't really like sharing resources with other applications on the same server. At a small site, putting Exchange on a virtual box is certainly an option.

Particularly if you also have a spam/virus filter on a dual homed virtual server, linked by an internal vSwitch.

[TomHowarth]

again a win win for MS, you stay on VC2.0.1 and ESX 3.0.1 and no more licensing revenue for VMware, but I bet you will upgrade your MS OS'es and Applications.

The Fact is this is blantant and classic MS bulliny tactics and hiss have you heard.

[Craig_Baltzer]

Again, I don't think you're getting the nuanced and

very clever way in which Microsoft's strategy is

coming into play regarding VMware. They obviously

can't go out and post a KB article saying that none

of their products will be supported or not "allowed"

on VMware - that would be a blatant anti-trust case

in the making.

Ok, now I understand that we're discussing your interpretation of possible intent rather than facts. Everyone has their own opinion and certainly you may feel strongly that certain actions by MS are designed to do something, but that is a far cry from MS saying that they "won't allow" something either via license restrictions or software restriction. If "MS won't allow Windows Server to be run on VMware", that means that when I try and install W2K3 the installer errors out and says "can't install on a VM" or in the EULA it says "Cannot be run in a virtual environment (like the Vista Home EULA says). That's not the case when we're talking about server products, and to keep representing your opinion as a fact doesn't really help in understanding the actual restrictions that may or may not be in place. I don't mean to be pointy here, I just want to be clear...

I'll give you a very real scenario:

1) When I run MBSA on Exchange 2003 I get a big red

Critical warning that this is running on VMware. When

it's Exchange 2003 is running on Virtual Server there

is no such warning. No big issue for me but this

will freak out many other folks, especially

non-technical types.

I'm in agreement with you here, no biggie, and in my opinion if the person looking at the MBSA output is unable to sift through the errors and warnings to figure out what is applicable to their environment, then they shouldn't be looking after the server, especially in an ESX environment. MBSA "errors" and "warns on a number of things that, if done, will break environments (i.e. recommending removing the stores off a front end server for example).

2) Exchange 2007 will not be supported in a virtual

environment until Virtual Server supports 64 bit

operating systems. This is directly from MS's Scott

Schnoll, on his Exchange, blog. Again the question

is why would MS not support Exchange in a virtual

environmnet until their own virtualization product is

ready?

Ok, we're back to the symantics of what "support" is again. Even when VS ships with 64bit capabilities, VMware ESX3 (or prob. ESX5 by that time ) will not be officially "supported". It has "commercially reasonable effort" support today and will continue to have it down the road...

If you want a good example of differing MS support, consider that E2K7 32bit ships on the E2K7 CD/DVD but is not supported for production use; is that the Exchange 2007 team out to "screw over" the Virtual Server team and "limit the customers flexibilty to choose"?

3) As cited in the orignal post when you fire up a

VHD on Virtual Server it runs fine... but on VMware

you get issues. So if I want to test out Exchange

2007 in one of these VHD formats that MS distributes

you can't run it on VMware. You have to use Virtual

Server to test it out.

I think this is a red herring argument for a couple of reasons

1. You're not going to run the sample VHDs on a production server for production use, and that's not what they were intended for. If you want to run it, install Virtual PC 2007 or Virtual Serveron your desktop; I've installed both VPC and VMware Virtual Server on my laptop and run which ever one I need. I think that this is in fact a great sales tool for VMware; by all means install Virtual Server and see how much better ESX is

Looking at this in another way, when I goto the Apple site and download a clip of the Mac/PC commercials that play on TV (and are really funny), I don't get bent out of shape and holler "anti-Microsoft conspiracy" because, even though Apple says its a "user friendly, media savvy company" it doesn't support playing Quicktime movies on Windows Media Player and makes me install the Quicktime player.

2. If you seriously want to evaluate the MS products as well as the VHD downloads you can download 180 day evals of the MS products that will install just fine on VMware. Conspiracy is when the eval versions won't install...

For a customer who is using Exchange and VMware this

may create a very strong incentive to move to MS's

Virtual Server not because of Virtual Server's

inherent technical merits but because of these other

pressures.

Certainly there will be customers that prefer "single stack" solutions to multi-vendor solutions; a number of people bought Symphony, Framework or Wordperfect Office back in the old days rather than the "best of breed" Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect and dBase III combo.

Let's go back to the summary from the original VMware

article. These are two main themes I see it:

1) Microsoft is trying to restrict customers’

flexibility and freedom to choose virtualization

software by limiting who can run their software and

how they can run it.

False for actual MS server software, true for the "canned" MS demos. In the big picture do I care as a customer that the demo requires me to install additional software to run the demo? Maybe I'm annoyed that I have to insatll more pieces to see the demo, but I'm more concerned that the actual software (not some cooked up demo) will run in my production environment (which it currently will).

2) Microsoft is leveraging its ownership of the

market leading operating system and numerous

applications that are market leaders in their

respective categories (Exchange, SQL Server, Active

Directory) to drive customers to use Microsoft

virtualization products.

MS is providing the most complete support for the stack of products they own, just as every vendor does. There is a big difference between trying to sell you something, and forcing you to buy it by actively breaking alternatives. Right now MS is trying to sell you Virtual Server for virtualization, not force you to buy it by making sure their server software won't run on VMware. To try and position agressive sales as "restricting flexibility and freedom" is, well, just the other side trying to counter-sell you on their solution.

So I assume you diasgree with these two tenents

absolutely?

I don't absolute agree or disagree with any of this, just trying to build my understanding of what is "fact", what is vendor "FUD" and what is a matter of people's opinion. I have little patience reading all the spin the vendor's crank out, be it FUD from MS sales on why you'll be better supported on VS rather than VMware, or from VMware trying to claim that product activation being triggered as a result of the hardware differences between the two emulated environments is in fact something that MS is doing on purpose to "limit the customers freedom to choose virtualization". What I do absolutely disagree with is looking at one side of this and then just stating the marketing propoganda over and over again as "fact"...

[kreischl]

Maybe I missed a new announcement, but the date on their support policy that includes wording of its Premier level policy is from October of 2005. Why is it a big issue now?

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897615

Message was edited by:

kreischl

[nolent]

>> Here I quote Novell Netware - this was a superior product to NT.51 and NT40. we know who won that battle. NDS is a superior directory fact, ADS won. he who controls the board will win the day. just because a product is technically superior, doe not mean that it will win a war

I am gonna disagree wholeheartedly with you on this one. I am a longtime netware admin, since the 3x days. Novell "lost" to microsoft because they were stubborn and completely stopped innovating.

Was Netware 3.x and Bindery better than NT3.x and 4.x domains? YES!

Was Netware 4.11 and NDS better than NT4 and domains? YES

Was Netware 5.1 better than Windows 2000 and AD ? the line begins to gray here. From a pure directory services standpoint, NDS/Edirectory is a better, more robust product with many advantages over AD. BUT you have to look at more than just the directory services standpoint. Aside from price, there could have been legitimate arguements made either way. Price clearly favored M$

Was Netware 6 and 6.5 better than Windows 2003? NO

1. Windows NT4+ has so many applications written to it that you almost HAVE to have Windows servers in your environment.

2. NO one is writing to NLM's anymore, this isnt 1993. And Novell's java environment sucks, its buggy, its a mess.

3. Chances are, over time, these same developers were writing their authentication methods to integrate into AD (which MS dont charge for) instead of edirectory/NDS (which you have to Licen$e). So you effectively have to have an AD envrironment for authentication

4. Why maintain 2 directory services? Why keep Netware around, just for authentication and file servers when Microsoft and Windows can do just as well. AD certainly has its limitations, but its getting better. Edirectory has had limitations since day one, and some of them still exist.

5. Price - Novell and Netware has ALWAYS been entirely too expensive. Even today, their prices for every one of their products is way out of line. Plus, they pressure you into maintaining support contracts and maintenance for their products or you will get hit with HUGE upgrade costs

6. Getting back to innovation - Netware 6.5 is fundamentally the SAME OS as Netware 4. It has a few more bells and whistles, but by and large is the SAME OS. So I spent all this money upgrading from Netware 4.11 to 5.0 to 5.1 to 6.0 to 6.5 for what? Actually when we went from Netware 5.1 (very stable platform) to Netware 6, it was LESS stable, so much to the fact that we were reassured that we needed to upgrade to Netware 6.5, which was even WORSE.

7. Vendor support. Again, NO ONE is writing to NLM's anymore. Symantec/Veritas is ending development for BE on netware and there is talk about ending development for SAV on Netware

Novell did have a good product back in the early to mid 90's, but then got very short sighted and lazy. They ceased to innovate, and continued to charge ABSURD prices on their products. At this point, they are about as relevant to the networking world as SCO.

Also, the stupid purchase of WordPerfect. The only thing good they got out of that was WPMail which ended up being the Groupwise product.

So as much as M$ may have done to squash competition from other vendors, they certainly didnt for Novell, Novell did it to themselves

[Craig_Baltzer]

.... this 'building code that won't run right on VMware' is spreading like wildfire!

http://www.informationweek.com/software/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=194500277

Now the malware and virus guys are refusing to support VMware and are actually writing their code so it won't run on VMware! Talk about cramping my "freedom to choose"...

Craig

[TomHowarth]

now if that is not an argument for virtualisation I don't know what is. :smileygrin: