|
Dick Trauma posted:When it comes to MS CALs I wish they'd just use something simple, like how tall a stack of $100s would take care of everything. "Yes, Mr. Trauma, your environment requires a 4.5 inch stack annually." You know what would make it easy? If the server just kept track and said "no free user CALs" let IT configure it to allow overage and worry about it if an audit happens. "We had them on order with Vendor" or whatever. Maybe tie them to the AD account, either computer or user depending. One thing that has never been made clear to me as I've never done the highest level purchasing, is the CAL for user file sharing by server or by user? If I have 3 file servers does each one need to be licensed for 100 users, or does a user having a CAL give them access to every file server?
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Just make the Windows Server licenses cost more and gently caress CALs off entirely, or roll them into the license cost of a Windows Pro/Enterprise OS. The whole concept of them is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Is there an "IT Resume" thread somewhere on the forums? I came into IT from sales which made it really easy to put numbers in front of people on paper, but I'm not sure what kind of numbers to put down on paper for IT related stuff. I've got a couple 'major' projects under my belt (rollout of win10, upgrade to Vsphere6, new hardware implementation, etc) but I'm not sure what to do with it other than list them
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 19:26
|
|
pixaal posted:You know what would make it easy? If the server just kept track and said "no free user CALs" let IT configure it to allow overage and worry about it if an audit happens. "We had them on order with Vendor" or whatever. Maybe tie them to the AD account, either computer or user depending. It depends. It's either by user or by device. If someone or something is accessing MS Server resources of just about any kind either the device that's accessing it needs a CAL or a portable device-agnostic CAL needs assigned to the end user. File services, AD, print servers, all the same CAL. And you definitely need one. Edit: server licenses are by processor/VOSE now. They really don't have anything to do with CALs. A user/device CAL is a separate concept. Obviously owning CALs without servers would be idiotic so not totally seperate, but hopefully you get the idea. milk milk lemonade fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Fudge posted:It depends. It's either by user or by device. If someone or something is accessing MS Server resources of just about any kind either the device that's accessing it needs a CAL or a portable device-agnostic CAL needs assigned to the end user. File services, AD, print servers, all the same CAL. And you definitely need one. Yes I know they need a CAL but if I have 100 users and 3 file servers and 1 print server. How many User CALs do I need? 100, 200 or 400? I've had coworkers tell me both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
100. Buy them with SA so you don't have to buy new CALs when a new Windows Server version comes along. "Any given user or device needs only one CAL to access any instance of the server software running across the organization"
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
And get Datacenter so you can have as many virtual machines as you want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:And get Datacenter so you can have as many virtual machines as you want. We're switching from enterprise server licenses to datacenter, and gently caress me is it expensive. But we've clustered our VM environment so technically we need one license for every host the VM could load balance to or some stupid poo poo. With 20 Windows VMs and 5 more coming by the end of the year it's finally worth it for us to jump over to datacenter. Is the support that's included with the datacenter license worth it, or should we keep our 5 incident yearly package we keep buying and never using?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Beats me, we don't pay for support. I do use the education vouchers that it comes with though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:40
|
|
pixaal posted:Yes I know they need a CAL but if I have 100 users and 3 file servers and 1 print server. How many User CALs do I need? 100, 200 or 400? If the company had 800 Windows servers I can access services through all of them myself legally with one user CAL. That's why I was saying they're seperate concepts - CALs are access to whatever services they apply to across your company.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Fudge posted:If the company had 800 Windows servers I can access services through all of them myself legally with one user CAL. That's why I was saying they're seperate concepts - CALs are access to whatever services they apply to across your company. Then why the gently caress doesn't AD just keep track of this for me? Let me assign CALs to logins please. Microsoft should stop making it so confusing that I can get an answer that every user needs access per server and as the reason to have file and print on the AD server. It's also really simple if this is the only case, and I don't get why everyone thinks they are complicated. I think they are complicated because everyone is arguing about them getting more confused. pixaal fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Normal Windows CAL's don't really exist like RDS CALs do. I don't have a file with 12,000 different CAL license keys at work. There's nothing really to assign to a user. It's an honor system thing, which is why MSFT audits folks that they think are out of compliance. poo poo isn't going to stop working when user 12,001 tries to access a resource. We tell Microsoft we have 12,000 users, and we make sure we have 12,000 CAL's. If we buy a company, we add CALs. If we only had 8,000 CALs but 12K users and we got audited, we'd be out of compliance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 22:04
|
|
pixaal posted:Then why the gently caress doesn't AD just keep track of this for me? Let me assign CALs to logins please. Microsoft should stop making it so confusing that I can get an answer that every user needs access per server and as the reason to have file and print on the AD server. Licensing gets complicated fast. Server licensing is pretty straightforward but I'm trying to spec out a System Center deployment and I can't make heads or rear end of what the hell I'm supposed to be buying (like seriously, why are there three separate classes of management licenses?? Why is it even one product now?). I don't know what the gently caress Microsoft is thinking half the time - I swear they don't even keep terminology consistent across their products. It's not that it should be hard or is some high level thinking that only a genius can comprehend. Microsofts documentation is terrible and half the time you can only understand what a licensing situation calls for by having experienced it time and time again.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Microsoft licensing is a walk in the park compared to Oracle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
The answer is to not buy Oracle products! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
If you think Microsoft licensing is straight forward... I welcome you explaining to me how Server 2016 licensing works because hoooooo boy!! Good luck! All licenses require 2x 8 core packs and extra cores can be bought in multiples of 2, but if you only have 6 cores then you still have to buy the 8 core license but then if you slice it out per CPU then... 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Hahaha they're doing something similar to the core multiplier poo poo they pulled with SQL. It really boiled down to 'under 4 cores? Multiply by whatever gets you to four!' Looks like they're introducing stupid new products too. Wish they would take essentials out back and shoot it, such a poo poo product.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Where the gently caress do they get the balls to charge OS licencing for hardware cores anyway? VMWare I get because more cores usually means more VMs, which is their product. But windows server is a single OS, whether I have 1 core or 256. What a poo poo show of a cash grab. If I load balance a VM on 3 hosts with 48 cores each, am I supposed to license every windows server for 144 cores???
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
They get the balls from "who the gently caress else are you going to buy your Server OS from?".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:But windows server is a single OS, whether I have 1 core or 256. Untrue, hyper-v is just another role in windows server 2012/2016, which means then you can host VMs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
I'm waiting for them to charge per core for loving Office suite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
MF_James posted:Untrue, hyper-v is just another role in windows server 2012/2016, which means then you can host VMs. Then rip out hyper-v and make a non gently caress-you edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
Just whitebox it and use kvm w/ openoffice365.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Then rip out hyper-v and make a non gently caress-you edition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Hows that different than windows 7 on a shitbox notebook ARM procedure vs a power desktop 4 CPU Xeon monstrosity? It's that businesses have more expendable budgets than users and Microsoft wants that money, that's how it's different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
You aren't paying to scale Windows 7 to provide enterprise infrastructure?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Fudge posted:You aren't paying to scale Windows 7 to provide enterprise infrastructure?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:Is there an "IT Resume" thread somewhere on the forums? I came into IT from sales which made it really easy to put numbers in front of people on paper, but I'm not sure what kind of numbers to put down on paper for IT related stuff. I've got a couple 'major' projects under my belt (rollout of win10, upgrade to Vsphere6, new hardware implementation, etc) but I'm not sure what to do with it other than list them http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3553582
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:If I load balance a VM on 3 hosts with 48 cores each, am I supposed to license every windows server for 144 cores???
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
Except we don't pay for Enterprise OS on the desktop, we get OEM Pro. Which Microsoft is giving another gently caress you too by removing features.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Then rip out hyper-v and make a non gently caress-you edition. Why would they do something that works actively against their goal of being the hypervisor of choice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:Why would they do something that works actively against their goal of being the hypervisor of choice? Because 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
Goddamn am I glad to be in academia after this topic. When we need more activations we literally call them up and as long as the MAK hasn't gone public, they just tack on an extra 500. Not to mention the ~15,000 user O365 deployment for $peanuts
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Except we don't pay for Enterprise OS on the desktop, we get OEM Pro. Which Microsoft is giving another gently caress you too by removing features.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
adorai posted:You are mad that you have to pay for an enterprise agreement to get the enterprise features? No I'm mad that the features I was previously using in Pro were removed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:No I'm mad that the features I was previously using in Pro were removed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 04:18
|
|
|
Pay MORE now. It's not like the price of Pro is dropping because it's getting less features. This is just a way for Microsoft to justify a price increase for the same set of features.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
Microsoft wants you to move everything to Azure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 13:47
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:But they weren't removed. You have to pay for them now. No, they were. Google "group policy removed from Pro".
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
It's always funny when you spec out servers and people want to cut corners on $10,000 worth of hardware that you're going to put $120,000 worth of software on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 14:20
|
|
