Re: CALS and public resources
From: Joe (joe_at_jretrading.com)
Date: 09/24/04
- Next message: Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]: "Re: CALS and public resources"
- Previous message: Michelle Dixon [MSFT]: "Re: Default Web Site vs Company Web Site"
- In reply to: David Copeland [MSFT]: "Re: CALS and public resources"
- Next in thread: Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]: "Re: CALS and public resources"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 19:52:02 +0100
In message <#Qa6oAmoEHA.260@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, "David Copeland
[MSFT]" <davidcop@online.microsoft.com> writes
>
>Here are answers to some of your questions..
>
>
> Q. Is each per user license tied to a specific user?
>
> A. If you choose per user CALs, then each Windows Small Business
>Server 2003 user will consume a CAL, and that CAL is tied to that specific
>user. You can re-allocate a user CAL if that reassignment is permanent. You
>can also temporarily re-assign if the user or device is disabled or on
>leave.
>
And this is where it gets murky, isn't it?
How does SBS tell the difference between a dummy user, created to allow
some obscure email/group requirement, and a real user? What happens if a
single human being needs to actually log in to (or runas) two different
accounts e.g. an unprivileged one and an admin one? Does he/she really
need two CALs? Surely all the admins in an organisation need this second
account. If they all used the Administrator account (does that need a
CAL?) then accountability is gone and auditing is pointless.
The License Manager in NT4 took an extreme, and rather naughty, position
on this. As far as it was concerned, every user and computer combination
needed a licence. I was new to Microsoft servers when I encountered a
rather terse instruction to 'purchase more licenses'. Since the
installation had 15 seat licences and there were only nine workstations
and a maximum of three laptops, I wondered what was going on. I
discovered that I was the problem, having logged into all nine
workstations as admin, plus a couple as a normal user. Presumably, if
everyone had logged in via all possible machines, twelve people would
have required 144 licences. Or at least, so the License Manager would
have claimed. As business practices go, I would consider that to be
verging on 'sharp'. It was pretty obvious that something funny was
happening in a network that small, but I could imagine a harassed IT
manager in a large organisation just paying up without actually counting
heads.
OK, it didn't take me too long to find the group configuration, though
strangely enough this wasn't mentioned in the Microsoft Press MCSE core
training manuals.
-- Joe
- Next message: Marina Roos [SBS-MVP]: "Re: CALS and public resources"
- Previous message: Michelle Dixon [MSFT]: "Re: Default Web Site vs Company Web Site"
- In reply to: David Copeland [MSFT]: "Re: CALS and public resources"
- Next in thread: Javier Gomez [SBS MVP]: "Re: CALS and public resources"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|