Microsoft Licensing Changes: Greedy and Monopolistic?

User links about "virtualization" on iLinkShare

User links about "virtualization" on iLinkShare — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:16:14 GMT

Pingback from User links about "virtualization" on iLinkShare

Recent Faves Tagged With "gartner" : MyNetFaves

Recent Faves Tagged With "gartner" : MyNetFaves — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:33:23 GMT

Pingback from Recent Faves Tagged With "gartner" : MyNetFaves

Recent Links Tagged With "citrix" - JabberTags

Recent Links Tagged With "citrix" - JabberTags — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:13:20 GMT

Pingback from Recent Links Tagged With "citrix" - JabberTags

iron

iron — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:11:34 GMT

Pingback from iron

re: Microsoft Licensing Changes: Greedy and Monopolistic?

Brad Moczik — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:39:00 GMT

Thanks, Matt! Wow, 100% virtualized--even going back to VS R2. What's next, VDI? :-)

As for MS continuing the trend with licensing changes, I think it has to. First, Hyper-V makes MS a player in the server virtualization space. But, it can't pitch all the benefits of virtualization when its licensing doesn't support them. Second, now that MS is entering the cloud and hosting spaces, it would have to change its policies so that it would be in compliance with, well, itself. Technically, maybe MS doesn't have to do that, but it would be pretty hypocritical (and transparent) if it was able to do things that its customers couldn't do (while remaining compliant).

re: Microsoft Licensing Changes: Greedy and Monopolistic?

Matt Freestone — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:40:29 GMT

Very well put Brad, and well explained. As someone who's company has been running 100% virtual on Hyper-V since Beta1 (including Windows Connected itself) and previously having been 100% virtualized on Virtual Server R2 this is a long over-due change. I sincerely hope that Microsoft continues this trend at making licensing more Virtual friendly.