[3170] in WWW Security List Archive
Re: [NTSEC] Re: General Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Germann)
Wed Oct 9 13:08:38 1996
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 10:34:40 -0400
To: c_dantonio@harvard.edu (Chuck D'Antonio)
From: Eric Germann <ekgermann@cctec.com>
Cc: www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
Errors-To: owner-www-security@ns2.rutgers.edu
At 09:31 AM 10/9/96 -0400, Chuck D'Antonio wrote:
>
>>He says nothing about server and workstation. He asks specifically about
>>4.0. More to the point, Catapult only runs on NT Server, so the above
>>article has absolutely no bearing.
>>
>>This "I hate MS because they chose their licensing terms" mantra is getting
>>old. When developing Web sites, the $400 difference between the two OS
>>versions is peanuts compared to the cost of connectivity and the other
>>associated soft costs. Its their product to license as they wish. If you
>>don't like the license, don't buy the product. Period.
>
>The message complaining about licensing terms did point people toward using
>Linux/Apache rather than Microsoft products. That sounds like suggesting that
>someone not buy the product to me. The issue with Microsoft's licensing isn't
>whether or not they have the right to license as they see fit, but rather the
>thin line they're walking with respect to anti-trust legislation and their
>agreement with the Justice Department.
>
The original responder said:
>>Mhh.. NT v4.0 is that MICROSOFT product that allows UP TO TEN
>>connections, isn't it? Why don't you have a look at the "MS NT
>>Workstation 4.0 License Maintains Socket Limitation" by Tim O'Reilly
>>(http://software.ora.com/news/msnt40_limit.html).
To the uninitiated, it appears that NT limits the connections. NT doesn't.
The license does and only on the workstation version. O'Reilly's
dissertation refers specifically to NTW. The uninitiated may get confused
and lump them all together. That is not a fair assessment. What I am
referring to is the ongoing discussions on the WebServer-NT lists about how
MS is "sticking it to me" Everyone there complains that IIS won't run on
NTW. They do not care about choice of WebSite, Purveyor, etc. They want to
take an MS product and run it on an MS OS and do it absolutely as cheaply as
possible. Maybe that didn't come through very clear in my original
response. But the majority of the complaints I see are of this type.
>If Microsoft limits their license regarding TCP/IP connections on Windows NT
>workstation, then you have to buy the server version to run a web server.
>They bundle a web server with NT Advanced Server, so many financial officers
>will consider it needless expense to buy a server that may better meet the
>technical requirements of a project. The result is fewer people buying other
>vendors' web servers. Since O'Reilly is one of these other vendors, they're
>justifiably upset about it all. Does the $400 licensing difference matter?
>Probably not, but taking a personal stand about non-competitive practices and
>encouraging others to do the same _is_not_ about saving everybody $400. That
>sounds much more like what the post your replied to was doing.
>
>You don't have to agree about discouraging use of Microsoft products for non-
>competitive practices. You don't have to agree that their practices are the
>least bit non-competitive. We're all just having a big discussion here, and
>some of us will care about what Microsoft is doing. I use some Microsoft
>products daily. I think some of their products are very good at what they
>do, but they don't produce the best-of-breed in every category they publish
>in.
>
>I'd rather have the choice of several vendors for all of my software, and many
>of Microsoft's business practices prevent this. I don't discourage them from
>trying to, that's business. But I also advocate technologically superior
>products when I see them that way -- even those that cost substantially more
>than Microsoft's offerings. Very few forums are better for that than mailing
>lists and newsgroups read by others facing some of the same technology choices
>that I face.
>
>Chuck
>
I agree wholeheartedly about choice. I have been a "victim" of some of
their practices with respect to some services. However, Microsoft
apparently can afford to walk the line of being anti-competitive. How can
they afford to give some software away? People vote with their dollars. If
everyone got mad enough, their cash flow would stop and they would HAVE to
charge for their products, just like the rest of us. Sadly enough, most
corporations I consult for don't care about the perception of
anti-competitive practices. They have the solution picked out and want it
implemented. IIS is hard to beat for most of the "generic" web sites most
people want to put up. What I have found in this world, is that crusaders
die poor and usually get burned at the stake :)
I would agree that it borders on anti-competitive. But who ultimately
benefits? For the vast majority of cases, the customer.
>--
>Chuck D'Antonio
>Programmer & Network Support Specialist
>FAS Administrative Computing
>Harvard University
>
>
>
>
================================================================================
Eric Germann Computer and Communications Technologies
ekgermann@cctec.com Van Wert, OH 45891
Phone: 419 968 2640
http://www.cctec.com Fax: 419 968 2641
Network Design, Connectivity & System Integration Services
A Microsoft Solution Provider
