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

[jurajfox]

That begs the question then...what facts would convince you that the following two statements are correct:

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.

[nolent]

#1 because feature for feature, VMware is heads and shoulders above M$'s product.

[Craig_Baltzer]

That begs the question then...what facts would

convince you that the following two statements are

correct:

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.

There are two "parts" here, things that are "VMware specific" issues, and things that are just issues.

For VMware specific, if MS:

1. Released a product that wouldn't run on VMware but would run on Virtual Server/Virtual PC and refused to work with VMware to help them to get it to work.

2. Changed the licensing to say that you could run an application on Virtual Server, Virtual PC or SLES/Xen but not on VMware, or otherwise changed the licensing so that running an "unlimited number of copies in VMs" was free on VS/VPC but you needed to buy one copy per VM on VMware.

Then I would say that they're restricting my ability to choose virtualization software.

In the more general case, changes to MS OS licensing that limit my ability to move OS licenses around between hardware devices make me grind my teeth. I'm just as PO'd that I can't move my MS Virtual Server VMs around between machines, or move OS installs between blades as I am that I can't Vmotion them around with VirtualCenter. That angst gets somewhat offset by the rest of the licensing that I can put in place with SA and Enterprise Agreements that give me other rights (demo/lab/evaluation use, "true-up" plans once a year under Enterprise Agreements, etc) but it still isn't "good".

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.

If "drive" means "force", then this is the same answer as the first question (MS either via software or license restrictions prevents me from using the software with VMware).

If "drive" means "agressively market", then I could care less; sales/marketing blurbs on most days have the technical accuracy of a National Enquirer alien landing story, so I think I can look at things objectively and use/recommend what makes sense. I take what all the vendors say, filter out the 90% BS/spin take the remaining 10% and combine it with actual experience, knowledge and real-world evaluation to make decisions/recommendations.

Craig

[jurajfox]

For VMware specific, if MS:

1. Released a product that wouldn't run on VMware but

would run on Virtual Server/Virtual PC and refused to

work with VMware to help them to get it to work.

2. Changed the licensing to say that you could run an

application on Virtual Server, Virtual PC or SLES/Xen

but not on VMware, or otherwise changed the licensing

so that running an "unlimited number of copies in

VMs" was free on VS/VPC but you needed to buy one

copy per VM on VMware.

Ok I think you've hit it on the head here. Both of these would be overtly blatant anti-trust actions that Microsoft is not going to do in light of past lawsuits and fines it has received regarding similar commensurate actions with different competitors.

What it looks like is that Microsoft is trying different tactical approaches to reach the same strategic goals. Hence, VMware's reaction.

[Justin_King]

And who needed TCP/IP when you had IPX?

Actually Novell went pure IP faster than Microsoft did.

NT4.0 still required Netbios no matter what it rode ontop of and only in 2000 did they finally ditch most of the dependancies. Novell 4 technically got there first.

It wasa combination of issues. 1. Microsoft faught dirty. I at least remeber the Novell proxy agent for NT4 that let you buy just a single Novell license for your entire FileSystem and proxy it thoruhg a NT4 box with cheaper windows licenses. Or when Microsoft would post fud on thier website about how novell didn't support RAID drives and when Novell demanded recant the article would disapear from the homepage but no letter of appoogy or damage control would ever get put in it's place. The pioneers of FUD.

And yeah Novell ran circles around Microsoft. One word: Salvage (Which Microsoft's VSS still can't mimik right to this day). And lets not get started about NDS vs AD ...

But I do admit Novell made some silly moves and practically gave the market to Microsoft. It was a combination of everything that put them into this position of selling off the last bits of intellectual property they have in exchange for use of Microsoft's proprietary hypervisor API ...

[Justin_King]

IM just going to be honest and state that I ifugred the world left novell after 4.11. I dont know anyone who continued on to 5 and 6.x.

Thats intersting insight on what happened to the product after I left it ... Seems they just spiralled downhill...

[dpomeroy]

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

Then I want some $$$ back from VMware if I cant use the feature anymore

[kimono]

In a sad ironic twist today is the first day I've ever seen my Vmware Workstation crash fatally with "Virtual Machine XP-KIMI-NETWARE" caused an unrecoverable exception, or something. So maybe one of those windows updates that came down this week has a new "VMWARE detect, crash & burn" feature hiding in it.

(or my Netware 4.11 client is due for an upgrade.)

[petedr]

would be a sad day, hoping things don't come to that.

[kimono]

I know I shouldn't be so negative. People who know me understand my cynical "jar" is usually full of coins :=) I have great faith in VMware for what they've done for the world of I.T. and my career. So I also hope things don't come to that. But if it does, well it's just a job ain't it.

[kreischl]

We are still a Netware 6.5 shop...we avoid installing Microsoft servers whenever we can.

[jasonboche]

We are still a Netware 6.5 shop...we avoid installing

Microsoft servers whenever we can.

I'm sorry to hear that. You are probably a Packer fan too

[TomHowarth]

If I had a clue what you were on about I think I'd be offended,

[kreischl]

heh - I think I did get a double-whammy.

[nolent]

>IM just going to be honest and state that I ifugred the world left novell after 4.11. I dont know anyone who continued on to 5 and 6.x.

We are still a Netware 6.5 shop...we avoid installing Microsoft servers whenever we can

We are too, for about another couple months then I can finally get rid of it

[Craig_Baltzer]

Ok I think you've hit it on the head here. Both of

these would be overtly blatant anti-trust actions

that Microsoft is not going to do in light of past

lawsuits and fines it has received regarding similar

commensurate actions with different competitors.

What it looks like is that Microsoft is trying

different tactical approaches to reach the same

strategic goals. Hence, VMware's reaction.

I'm sure there will be much jockeying for position by all sides and that will only increase with Longhorn and the new virtualization stack from MS. Hopefully this doesn't start getting silly with "vendor lockout" and "anti-trust complaints" because the customer loses the most from this crap; I just want to be able to print to the "open" PDF format without having to pay extra (thanks Adobe for going to the EU with an anti-competition whine to force MS to pull out the PDF print driver)...

[kimono]

I just want

to be able to print to the "open" PDF format without

having to pay extra (thanks Adobe for going to the EU

with an anti-competition whine to force MS to pull

out the PDF print driver)...

Something that Mac's OSX shines on right out of the box...

[Ken_Cline]

I just want to be able to print to the "open" PDF

format without having to pay extra

Try this http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/

[Craig_Baltzer]

I just want to be able to print to the "open" PDF

format without having to pay extra

Try this http://sourceforge.net/projects/pdfcreator/

Thanks Ken. I gave this one a try back in the summer, long with 5 other commerical versions. The "kicker" always seems to be text in an embedded Visio diagram in MS Word. For some reason the only one that seems to be able to render small text (Arial Narrow 8 or less) reliably without sporatically getting some wierd "word wrap" type behaviour going is the Adobe print driver...

[Craig_Baltzer]

I just want

to be able to print to the "open" PDF format

without

having to pay extra (thanks Adobe for going to the

EU

with an anti-competition whine to force MS to pull

out the PDF print driver)...

Something that Mac's OSX shines on right out of the

box...

Exactly! And "out of the box" it would have been for Vista if Adobe hadn't kicked up a stink with the EU on antitrust and forced MS to pull it. Funny how its Ok for Apple, but not Ok for MS.