× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.



I'll go back and listen to the presentation again but I could have sworn that the model was build around "authentication".

This is from the Microsoft Windows 2003 Server web site and it sounds just like what IBM is suggesting:

"Note the following general exception to Windows CAL requirements: Windows CALs are not required when access to the server software is unauthenticated and conducted through the Internet. Authenticated access is defined as an exchange of user or application credentials between the server software and a user or device. An example of this exception would be if unidentified users browsed your public Web site. Windows CALs would not be required for those users."

Note that it doesn't say anything about creating a user profile in AD. It is the "exchange of user or application credentials between the server software and a user or device", so an application that requires any kind of authentication in Windows requires a CAL. That is just the way it is. It has been that way in Windows for quite some time.

That is why Microsoft recommends the "External Connector" licensing. Again from the Microsoft web site:

"If you would like to allow your business partners or customers to access your network, you have two licensing options:

1. Acquire Windows CALs for each of your external users.

2. Acquire External Connector (EC) licenses for each copy of the Windows Server 2003 software that will be accessed by your external users.

An external user is a person who is not an employee, or similar personnel of the company or its affiliates, and is not someone to whom you provide hosted services using the server software."

Sounds a lot like what IBM proposed!? Yep. We wanted a box that would "compete" with Windows and, at least at the licensing level, we got *exactly* what we asked for: Complete parity with Windows Server. Just replace "Windows CAL" with "User Entitlement" and you have the IBM licensing recommendation.

Pete



albartell wrote:
It just seems like such an odd licensing model (and actually crooked in my
mind). Just think of all the applications that already have some sort of
authentication built into them. I have them all over the place! I still
don't believe we are understanding the model and I will hold my statements
until I gain more understanding, but if it is in fact as we are hearing,
then this is simply another bait and switch in the IBM saga of late.

Aaron Bartell
Http://mowyourlawn.com


-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pete Helgren
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 11:32 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: IBM will announce two new System i models, 515 and 525 on Apr.
10.

Basically the pitch was they *can't* enforce it and are relying on the
licensing owner to enforce the licensing requirements. They didn't say that
it was the "honor system" but that was about as good a description as I
could give it. IBM has the right to audit your user entitlements as part of
the licensing agreement so I suppose they could come in and determine just
how your users are authenticating to the System i. But
*would* they? I doubt it. You can either be honest about it or dishonest,
I guess. Over time they may have better tools to monitor it. For now, it
is up to the licensing entity to be straight with them.

I had seen this information back in February as well and the whole "counting
users" issue hasn't changed since the original pitch.

Pete

albartell wrote:
It didn't make any difference whether the authenticating user was a System
i user profile or one of your own users in your own database. If there was a process that involved uniquely identifying a user and passing a userid and password, it was "authenticating" and was using a User Entitlement that would have to be paid for.

No possible way they can enforce this. I am guessing they meant to say something else.

Aaron Bartell

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.