Disaster Recovery - Hosted Server
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Why? How would you be affected? You have to CAL track now. What new effort would be involved?
Because if we're all going to move to hosted, then let's see if we can drop the back and forth of cal tracking and just focus on doing IT with these products.
One could argue that when you choose Windows, you choose to make IT all about license tracking
But it would simply be a lack of a benefit, not a new burden. Seems an odd place to be upset had that benefit not have been provided since you didn't balk when they had you do it on site for no reason either. You could have chosen Linux fifteen years ago and avoided all license headaches for all these years too. It would be really strange to eschew Windows now because they didn't drop the requirement after it's been acceptable for so long.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
What I am trying to understand is how I can actually use Azure to do the AD, whether 100% Azure with no on site server OR a hybrid option.
There is nothing to know. Spin up a server, Hook up a VPN. Profit. That's all. Use it anyway you want. There is no licensing overhead to think about when working with Azure.
-
The only thing that you have to know is.... Azure is not a loophole. You don't get to STOP buying CALs. You just don't change anything. You operate like you always have. Everything is handled.
-
It would be really strange to eschew Windows now because they didn't drop the requirement after it's been acceptable for so long.
Dropping the need to worry about CAL tracking is only a plus. Windows 95 was acceptable for awhile but we've since moved onto better things (hopefully) Why would MS not drop CAL tracking if it makes life easier? What benefit does it have to anyone?
@scottalanmiller said:
The only thing that you have to know is.... Azure is not a loophole.
I'm not trying to cheat MS, Just trying to figure out their product.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Seems an odd place to be upset had that benefit not have been provided since you didn't balk when they had you do it on site for no reason either.
Surely the reason was rampant software piracy, that's why we have the ever popular third party software audits. How can you pirate 365 or Azure? You either have the right license/billing amount or they switch you off.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Dropping the need to worry about CAL tracking is only a plus. Windows 95 was acceptable for awhile but we've since moved onto better things (hopefully) Why would MS not drop CAL tracking if it makes life easier? What benefit does it have to anyone?
They could have not created it in the first place if making life easier was the goal
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Seems an odd place to be upset had that benefit not have been provided since you didn't balk when they had you do it on site for no reason either.
Surely the reason was rampant software piracy, that's why we have the ever popular third party software audits. How can you pirate 365 or Azure? You either have the right license/billing amount or they switch you off.
But there could not have been piracy if they hadn't introduced it. If piracy was the only issue, not making CALs at all would have fixed CAL piracy
They did it to make extra money. Charge for the client. Charge for the server. Charge of the two together. They never had to do it, they've always had other options but opted for very complex ones.
-
@scottalanmiller I think you've just described another reason why I'd dislike CALS for Azure or other MS hosted services.
Imagine if they decided "Hey, you now need CALS for every 365 user, pay up"
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller I think you've just described another reason why I'd dislike CALS for Azure or other MS hosted services.
Imagine if they decided "Hey, you now need CALS for every 365 user, pay up"
Actually, you do need them for that. Office 365 is specifically licensed in that way.
-
@scottalanmiller Huh?, Never needed to buy 365 cals, we buy licenses per user.
Could you explain?
-
And it is more than just the theoretical. If you use Office 365 you pay a per user CAL via the per user monthly licensing fee that is basically nothing but a CAL.
But then, if you use DirSync or AD Integration with Office 365 you need traditional Windows Server CALs on top of the Office 365 "CAL"!
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller Huh?, Never needed to buy 365 cals, we buy licenses per user.
Could you explain?
How do you define a CAL differently than that? What is a CAL except for a per user license?
-
@scottalanmiller ...Right, you are just being awkward
Server 2012, you buy one product and you need to buy multiple products called CALS as a separate purchase depending on user/device number.
@scottalanmiller said:
How do you define a CAL differently than that? What is a CAL except for a per user license?
Because the 365 license is not just an access license for one product/service, it pays for multiple services on 365 as a single billable item, I don't need to buy 50 E3 licenses, then buy 50 E3-cals as a separate purchase, that would be crazy for MS but that's what I'm saying.
Does that make sense?
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller ...Right, you are just being awkward
Server 2012, you buy one product and you need to buy multiple products called CALS as a separate purchase depending on user/device number.
@scottalanmiller said:
How do you define a CAL differently than that? What is a CAL except for a per user license?
Because the 365 license is not just an access license for one product/service, it pays for multiple services on 365 as a single billable item, I don't need to buy 50 E3 licenses, then buy 50 E3-cals as a separate purchase, that would be crazy for MS but that's what I'm saying.
Does that make sense?
Sort of. But I see it the opposite. When I buy MS Server I see it only as capacity since I can't use it. It is the CALs that let me have the different services on it. I buy one CAL for access to AD, another one for access to RDS, etc. I see Office 365 identically, except that the "server" piece is free. I still need to buy a CAL and a different CAL based on the services that I want. If I was E3 I need the "Premium CAL" or if I just need email the "Standard CAL" and if I want Visio I have to add on a "Visio CAL" etc. From that perspective, it seems identical to what we had before, just with Microsoft hosting a big, shared server that we don't have to license separately.
-
@scottalanmiller Sure, yet they are different products, with a different pricing structure and distribution method, MS never refer to 365 licenses or services as CALs, so why would we keep the terms the same when the products are very different.
@scottalanmiller said:
Azure is neither a loophole nor a financial windfall for large companies.
Actually instead of larger capital costs of CALS & licenses, you only pay for what you use/need in terms of capacity? Surely that's a big benefit to any organisation in terms of finance, different model.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Azure is neither a loophole nor a financial windfall for large companies.
Actually instead of larger capital costs of CALS & licenses, you only pay for what you use/need in terms of capacity? Surely that's a big benefit to any organisation in terms of finance, different model.
But not a windfall. You don't simple spend $20 on Azure and get your millions and millions of dollars of traditional CAL costs to evaporate. That's what the one option implied - that Azure would eliminate the need for all CALs, not only when accessing Azure. That would be a huge windfall. Change nothing, spend nothing, no longer need CALs.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller Sure, yet they are different products, with a different pricing structure and distribution method, MS never refer to 365 licenses or services as CALs, so why would we keep the terms the same when the products are very different.
They changed the name of Lync to Skype for Business to confuse people too, but it's the same product (literally, just a name change.)
It's because Office 365 really is a CAL. Sure, there is a different pricing structure, but there were always different structures with the same name of the result. It's closer to a CAL than to anything else, right? Why call it something else?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It's closer to a CAL than to anything else, right? Why call it something else?
Because MS decided it is not a CAL, it's a per user license
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Because MS decided it is not a CAL, it's a per user license
Hmmmmm.....
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's closer to a CAL than to anything else, right? Why call it something else?
Because MS decided it is not a CAL, it's a per user license
isn't that what a CAL is?
