Re: Assigning CALs in SBS2003?

Well Said!

Anna Clark

"Les Connor [SBS MVP]" <les.connor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:AD9899AC-3FE4-43BB-B43F-66420C3CB202@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Michael,

It's actually a very forgiving and flexible system of client licensing.
That's what makes it hard - even impossible - for SBS to track in
absolutes - computers don't understand 'flexible' nor 'forgiving' ;-).

Think about it this way:

A person carries a "user" license around with him/her. It doesn't matter
from where, or how many, concurrent connections, or not, are made to the
server by this person. Because they are carrying the license, the
connection is compliant and only the single User CAL is considered to be
in use.

A device (computer, PDA, etc.) has attached to it a "device" license. Any
persons, whether they hold a "user" CAL, or not, may use this device to
connect to the SBS and the connection is compliant because the device
holds the license.

So, you make up a simple spread*** - list your 'persons', and list your
'devices'. Generally speaking, if you have more 'Devices' than 'Persons',
you'll purchase User CALs; that's the most economical for you and the
flexibility allows this. Opposite if you have more 'Persons' than
'Devices'.

That's the simple way - keep all CALs the same type, including the 5 built
in CALs - it's easier to track that way. But it might not be the most
economical way.

The complex way is to mix the CALs, but it might save you money. For
example, if you have 5 computers that are shared by 10 people (shift work,
whatever), as well as some people that have a desktop at work, a laptop, a
home computer, and a PDA (that's 4 devices), it might be more economical
to purchase User CALs for these folks.

Back to the spread*** - assign device CALs to the devices until they're
all assigned, assign user CALs to the persons until they're all gone. If
you need more, get more. When the license cops come around, show them the
spread***.

If a device or user is retired/replaced, then re-assign that CAL on your
spread*** - keep it up-to-date.

It's actually pretty sweet, and I don't think you'll complain about it
once you get your head around it ;-).

--
Les Connor [SBS MVP]


"Michael Liu" <noone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O6ezOJwdHHA.1388@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Les, thanks for the info.

Frankly, I'm more than a bit surprised. With all the money MS has put
into product activation and their "Genuine Advantage" program, I would
have thought they'd have a more sophisticated and elegant CAL management
solution for their server products. Right now I'm only dealing with the
five "generic" CALs that ship with SBS, but when I later add more CALs
(which are purchased as either dedicated User CALs or Device CALs) does
SBS know which is which? Or is it again based on the honor system? That
begs the question: if MS has no tools for validating and managing CALs,
then why even bother pre-packaging additional CALs as only User or
Device? Why not make them generic like the default five?

I have one more related question...
Let's say I assign a User CAL to a person and he signs on to his office
desktop computer at work. Later, he goes home without first signing out
at the office. Will he still be able to sign-in remotely (using his same
account/credentials) via his laptop for example?

Regards,
Michael


"Les Connor [SBS MVP]" <les.connor@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:upGIPlvdHHA.2128@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi Michael,

Yes, the honor system. SBS is only capable of a guess at when you might
be operating illegally, and will warn you if it thinks that's the case.

It's the owner's responsibility to ensure license compliance.

--
Les Connor [SBS MVP]


"Michael Liu" <noone@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23pXY0fvdHHA.4340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've read that SBS does a poor job of managing licenses, but it seems
like it actually does no job of managing licenses. So how does SBS know
if a user or a device is assigned an appropriate User or Device
license -- or any CAL for that matter? Is it based strictly on the
honor system?







.

Loading