Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

Once Yukon is released (whenever that might be) does anyone from MS have any
comment on licensing for Yukon and on SQL 2000.

I really don't think anyone with SQL 2000 licenses are going to upgrade
because the database admin or even the developer is going to convince
management it's worth the cost regardless if SQL server can do C# or VB.NET
stored procedures.

This is because the performance is terrible and Oracle has had Java stored
procs for years and practically zippo of their dba's or developer's have
moved to it anyway. SQL is EASY to learn and get started with, regardless
of future architecture needs. PERIOD


There has really got to be a better licensing policy from Microsoft that
will address and compete better with the very low costs of using MySql.

It's going to be very hard to convince a very very small business or start
up to spend for a SQL Server 2000 processor license and all the associated
cost with just building an in-house web server with a database backend when
the hardware at say $1000 and software, just licensing, costs at least
double or triple the cost of hardware.

MS is spending a lot of time trying to go against Oracle and DB2 and a less
time going after the mom and pop and the novice user WHO will eventually
call the shots in what database is used in the future if and once they grow
and become the next eBay.

The SQL server MSDE version and all those other licenses are never mentioned
to the mom and pop or the student or entrepreneur as they can't be used on a
production environment....

*****
If Microsoft wants, they could even further limit the power or a production
verion of SQL Server with an alternative licensing plan, this will make
upgrading a LOT easier and THUS, MORE satisified customers that are using a
stored procs and a good db architecture instead of a risky port from one db
to another....
****

The point is Microsoft needs to address the in-house or co-located
web-server instead of the ISP who offers their service as DSL and cable
modems make internet access more affordable wanting to host their stuff
in-house....THUS, those who know and can and want to do this are definitely
MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, MORE DEDICATED to actually becoming the next eBay.
Anyone who is REALLY is going to believe in their new business is NOT going
readily host it on some ISP's SQL Server.

Not every business is going to be an eBay...BUT they are STILL BUSINESSES
anyway so why not cater to them and get them to be the best they can be.

PHP and MySQL had better be looked at now or Microsoft will have just a big
of a problem with MySql as they do with Linux.

MSDE is a COMPLETE LICENSING FAILURE as ZERO PEOPLE USE IT for anything,
even development.

Microsoft had better learn to cater to the masses or the masses will take
their business somewhere else. And getting them to switch is going to be an
uphill battle as CPU are only going to get faster.

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

I am for one, and we have two processor licenses on one instance, and a ten
seat license at another. I can not wait for Yukon! It's going to rock.
"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:udDdAiueDHA.1056@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Once Yukon is released (whenever that might be) does anyone from MS have[/color]
any[color=blue]
> comment on licensing for Yukon and on SQL 2000.
>
> I really don't think anyone with SQL 2000 licenses are going to upgrade
> because the database admin or even the developer is going to convince
> management it's worth the cost regardless if SQL server can do C# or[/color]
VB.NET[color=blue]
> stored procedures.
>
> This is because the performance is terrible and Oracle has had Java stored
> procs for years and practically zippo of their dba's or developer's have
> moved to it anyway. SQL is EASY to learn and get started with, regardless
> of future architecture needs. PERIOD
>
>
> There has really got to be a better licensing policy from Microsoft that
> will address and compete better with the very low costs of using MySql.
>
> It's going to be very hard to convince a very very small business or start
> up to spend for a SQL Server 2000 processor license and all the associated
> cost with just building an in-house web server with a database backend[/color]
when[color=blue]
> the hardware at say $1000 and software, just licensing, costs at least
> double or triple the cost of hardware.
>
> MS is spending a lot of time trying to go against Oracle and DB2 and a[/color]
less[color=blue]
> time going after the mom and pop and the novice user WHO will eventually
> call the shots in what database is used in the future if and once they[/color]
grow[color=blue]
> and become the next eBay.
>
> The SQL server MSDE version and all those other licenses are never[/color]
mentioned[color=blue]
> to the mom and pop or the student or entrepreneur as they can't be used on[/color]
a[color=blue]
> production environment....
>
> *****
> If Microsoft wants, they could even further limit the power or a[/color]
production[color=blue]
> verion of SQL Server with an alternative licensing plan, this will make
> upgrading a LOT easier and THUS, MORE satisified customers that are using[/color]
a[color=blue]
> stored procs and a good db architecture instead of a risky port from one[/color]
db[color=blue]
> to another....
> ****
>
> The point is Microsoft needs to address the in-house or co-located
> web-server instead of the ISP who offers their service as DSL and cable
> modems make internet access more affordable wanting to host their stuff
> in-house....THUS, those who know and can and want to do this are[/color]
definitely[color=blue]
> MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, MORE DEDICATED to actually becoming the next eBay.
> Anyone who is REALLY is going to believe in their new business is NOT[/color]
going[color=blue]
> readily host it on some ISP's SQL Server.
>
> Not every business is going to be an eBay...BUT they are STILL BUSINESSES
> anyway so why not cater to them and get them to be the best they can be.
>
> PHP and MySQL had better be looked at now or Microsoft will have just a[/color]
big[color=blue]
> of a problem with MySql as they do with Linux.
>
> MSDE is a COMPLETE LICENSING FAILURE as ZERO PEOPLE USE IT for anything,
> even development.
>
> Microsoft had better learn to cater to the masses or the masses will take
> their business somewhere else. And getting them to switch is going to be[/color]
an[color=blue]
> uphill battle as CPU are only going to get faster.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

Why do you assume that support for VB.NET or C# is the only, or even most
significant, improvement in Yukon? Assuming that is a huge mistake.

I happen to think that you are right about Microsoft needing to find a
better formula for competing with MySQL. However, they have to find a way
to do that while (a) still making good money and (b) still addressing the
high end (which is where all the money actually is). Beyond that I find you
very poorly informed about the licensing of MSDE and about how MySQL is
actually being used by most customers. But, given your style of discussion
I won't be devoting any time to discussing this with you.

--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC


"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:udDdAiueDHA.1056@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Once Yukon is released (whenever that might be) does anyone from MS have[/color]
any[color=blue]
> comment on licensing for Yukon and on SQL 2000.
>
> I really don't think anyone with SQL 2000 licenses are going to upgrade
> because the database admin or even the developer is going to convince
> management it's worth the cost regardless if SQL server can do C# or[/color]
VB.NET[color=blue]
> stored procedures.
>
> This is because the performance is terrible and Oracle has had Java stored
> procs for years and practically zippo of their dba's or developer's have
> moved to it anyway. SQL is EASY to learn and get started with, regardless
> of future architecture needs. PERIOD
>
>
> There has really got to be a better licensing policy from Microsoft that
> will address and compete better with the very low costs of using MySql.
>
> It's going to be very hard to convince a very very small business or start
> up to spend for a SQL Server 2000 processor license and all the associated
> cost with just building an in-house web server with a database backend[/color]
when[color=blue]
> the hardware at say $1000 and software, just licensing, costs at least
> double or triple the cost of hardware.
>
> MS is spending a lot of time trying to go against Oracle and DB2 and a[/color]
less[color=blue]
> time going after the mom and pop and the novice user WHO will eventually
> call the shots in what database is used in the future if and once they[/color]
grow[color=blue]
> and become the next eBay.
>
> The SQL server MSDE version and all those other licenses are never[/color]
mentioned[color=blue]
> to the mom and pop or the student or entrepreneur as they can't be used on[/color]
a[color=blue]
> production environment....
>
> *****
> If Microsoft wants, they could even further limit the power or a[/color]
production[color=blue]
> verion of SQL Server with an alternative licensing plan, this will make
> upgrading a LOT easier and THUS, MORE satisified customers that are using[/color]
a[color=blue]
> stored procs and a good db architecture instead of a risky port from one[/color]
db[color=blue]
> to another....
> ****
>
> The point is Microsoft needs to address the in-house or co-located
> web-server instead of the ISP who offers their service as DSL and cable
> modems make internet access more affordable wanting to host their stuff
> in-house....THUS, those who know and can and want to do this are[/color]
definitely[color=blue]
> MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, MORE DEDICATED to actually becoming the next eBay.
> Anyone who is REALLY is going to believe in their new business is NOT[/color]
going[color=blue]
> readily host it on some ISP's SQL Server.
>
> Not every business is going to be an eBay...BUT they are STILL BUSINESSES
> anyway so why not cater to them and get them to be the best they can be.
>
> PHP and MySQL had better be looked at now or Microsoft will have just a[/color]
big[color=blue]
> of a problem with MySql as they do with Linux.
>
> MSDE is a COMPLETE LICENSING FAILURE as ZERO PEOPLE USE IT for anything,
> even development.
>
> Microsoft had better learn to cater to the masses or the masses will take
> their business somewhere else. And getting them to switch is going to be[/color]
an[color=blue]
> uphill battle as CPU are only going to get faster.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

I am not here to discuss with you....it's Microsoft who counts....

I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered to read
it.

It's says distribution..not production....

It's also readily confused by NEW customers....that's why MySql is easily
taking off.....




"Hal Berenson" <haroldb@truemountainconsulting.com> wrote in message
news:uewVjT7eDHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Why do you assume that support for VB.NET or C# is the only, or even most
> significant, improvement in Yukon? Assuming that is a huge mistake.
>
> I happen to think that you are right about Microsoft needing to find a
> better formula for competing with MySQL. However, they have to find a way
> to do that while (a) still making good money and (b) still addressing the
> high end (which is where all the money actually is). Beyond that I find[/color]
you[color=blue]
> very poorly informed about the licensing of MSDE and about how MySQL is
> actually being used by most customers. But, given your style of[/color]
discussion[color=blue]
> I won't be devoting any time to discussing this with you.
>
> --
> Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
> True Mountain Group LLC
>
>
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
> news:udDdAiueDHA.1056@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > Once Yukon is released (whenever that might be) does anyone from MS have[/color]
> any[color=green]
> > comment on licensing for Yukon and on SQL 2000.
> >
> > I really don't think anyone with SQL 2000 licenses are going to upgrade
> > because the database admin or even the developer is going to convince
> > management it's worth the cost regardless if SQL server can do C# or[/color]
> VB.NET[color=green]
> > stored procedures.
> >
> > This is because the performance is terrible and Oracle has had Java[/color][/color]
stored[color=blue][color=green]
> > procs for years and practically zippo of their dba's or developer's have
> > moved to it anyway. SQL is EASY to learn and get started with,[/color][/color]
regardless[color=blue][color=green]
> > of future architecture needs. PERIOD
> >
> >
> > There has really got to be a better licensing policy from Microsoft that
> > will address and compete better with the very low costs of using MySql.
> >
> > It's going to be very hard to convince a very very small business or[/color][/color]
start[color=blue][color=green]
> > up to spend for a SQL Server 2000 processor license and all the[/color][/color]
associated[color=blue][color=green]
> > cost with just building an in-house web server with a database backend[/color]
> when[color=green]
> > the hardware at say $1000 and software, just licensing, costs at least
> > double or triple the cost of hardware.
> >
> > MS is spending a lot of time trying to go against Oracle and DB2 and a[/color]
> less[color=green]
> > time going after the mom and pop and the novice user WHO will eventually
> > call the shots in what database is used in the future if and once they[/color]
> grow[color=green]
> > and become the next eBay.
> >
> > The SQL server MSDE version and all those other licenses are never[/color]
> mentioned[color=green]
> > to the mom and pop or the student or entrepreneur as they can't be used[/color][/color]
on[color=blue]
> a[color=green]
> > production environment....
> >
> > *****
> > If Microsoft wants, they could even further limit the power or a[/color]
> production[color=green]
> > verion of SQL Server with an alternative licensing plan, this will make
> > upgrading a LOT easier and THUS, MORE satisified customers that are[/color][/color]
using[color=blue]
> a[color=green]
> > stored procs and a good db architecture instead of a risky port from one[/color]
> db[color=green]
> > to another....
> > ****
> >
> > The point is Microsoft needs to address the in-house or co-located
> > web-server instead of the ISP who offers their service as DSL and cable
> > modems make internet access more affordable wanting to host their stuff
> > in-house....THUS, those who know and can and want to do this are[/color]
> definitely[color=green]
> > MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE, MORE DEDICATED to actually becoming the next eBay.
> > Anyone who is REALLY is going to believe in their new business is NOT[/color]
> going[color=green]
> > readily host it on some ISP's SQL Server.
> >
> > Not every business is going to be an eBay...BUT they are STILL[/color][/color]
BUSINESSES[color=blue][color=green]
> > anyway so why not cater to them and get them to be the best they can be.
> >
> > PHP and MySQL had better be looked at now or Microsoft will have just a[/color]
> big[color=green]
> > of a problem with MySql as they do with Linux.
> >
> > MSDE is a COMPLETE LICENSING FAILURE as ZERO PEOPLE USE IT for anything,
> > even development.
> >
> > Microsoft had better learn to cater to the masses or the masses will[/color][/color]
take[color=blue][color=green]
> > their business somewhere else. And getting them to switch is going to be[/color]
> an[color=green]
> > uphill battle as CPU are only going to get faster.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

>>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered to
read it.

Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and you know a
fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL Server/MSDE.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> It's says distribution..not production....[/color][/color][/color]

What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to development, you
distribute to production!

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

READ CAREFULLY

http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp

Common Rules and Guidelines
Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access licenses
(CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL Server
2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.


Typical Smart A** MVP.......



"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
news:eVmuXv9eDHA.3528@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered to[/color][/color]
> read it.
>
> Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and you know a
> fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL Server/MSDE.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> It's says distribution..not production....[/color][/color]
>
> What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to development,[/color]
you[color=blue]
> distribute to production!
>
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

This is solved easiest by simply sending a letter to Microsoft's legal
affair's group. However, this may not be necessary. If you take the time to
read the actually licensing paragraph it says:
[color=blue]
> Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color]
licenses (CALs) when INTERACTING with > SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.

It does not pertain to your own application using MSDE. It pertains to
whether or not in your use of MSDE you utilize its features (i.e.,
replication) to then connect to a SQL Server in a production environment. In
which case, you need CALs, unless of course, you are like the bulk of the
license base which has moved to the CPU based licensing methods.


"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:O4M6Bz9eDHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> READ CAREFULLY
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp
>
> Common Rules and Guidelines
> Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color]
licenses[color=blue]
> (CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL[/color]
Server[color=blue]
> 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
>
>
> Typical Smart A** MVP.......
>
>
>
> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
> news:eVmuXv9eDHA.3528@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered to[/color]
> > read it.
> >
> > Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and you know[/color][/color]
a[color=blue][color=green]
> > fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL Server/MSDE.
> >[color=darkred]
> > >>> It's says distribution..not production....[/color]
> >
> > What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to development,[/color]
> you[color=green]
> > distribute to production!
> >
> > --
> > Tony Rogerson
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> > (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

Yes, that's the problem...in a production environment, you just might want
to connect via enterprise manager OR the mom and pop might just want to look
at the tables and see what they bought.....

In a PRODUCTION environment...YOU need Enterprise Manager or Query
Analyzer...the KEY word is PRODUCTION....which means can't go down when you
need it...which means 24/7..no screwups....

Can anyone here say with 100% certainty that mom and pop OR whoever ever
needs to diagnose or BACKUP or RESTORE will never ever need Enterprise
Manager or Query Analyzer? NOOOOOOO.....

WITH Enterprise Manager, I could TALK them through it OVER the PHONE....BIG
BIG PLUS.......

This is "PRODUCTION" environment...say if mom and pop are the only ones
there AND for some reason a BACKUP needs to be done....a LOT easier and LESS
ERROR PRONE with Enterprise Manager.

The problem here is that a LOT of MVP's don't see it from the EYES of the
CUSTOMER....

I want to give MOM and POP something to BELIEVE IN........MSDE may cause
them to lose faith when they need it the most.....



"David Vins" <davidvins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23uYYC1$eDHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> This is solved easiest by simply sending a letter to Microsoft's legal
> affair's group. However, this may not be necessary. If you take the time[/color]
to[color=blue]
> read the actually licensing paragraph it says:
>[color=green]
> > Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color]
> licenses (CALs) when INTERACTING with > SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition[/color]
or[color=blue]
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
>
> It does not pertain to your own application using MSDE. It pertains to
> whether or not in your use of MSDE you utilize its features (i.e.,
> replication) to then connect to a SQL Server in a production environment.[/color]
In[color=blue]
> which case, you need CALs, unless of course, you are like the bulk of the
> license base which has moved to the CPU based licensing methods.
>
>
> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
> news:O4M6Bz9eDHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > READ CAREFULLY
> >
> > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp
> >
> > Common Rules and Guidelines
> > Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color]
> licenses[color=green]
> > (CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL[/color]
> Server[color=green]
> > 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
> >
> >
> > Typical Smart A** MVP.......
> >
> >
> >
> > "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
> > news:eVmuXv9eDHA.3528@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> > > >>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I bothered[/color][/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > read it.
> > >
> > > Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and you[/color][/color][/color]
know[color=blue]
> a[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL Server/MSDE.
> > >
> > > >>> It's says distribution..not production....
> > >
> > > What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to[/color][/color][/color]
development,[color=blue][color=green]
> > you[color=darkred]
> > > distribute to production!
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tony Rogerson
> > > SQL Server MVP
> > > http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> > > (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

>>> Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access
licenses[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> (CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL[/color][/color][/color]
Server[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.[/color][/color][/color]

Please re-read that, why would you need to connect MSDE to SQL Server? That
would mean you had 2 SQL Servers (MSDE and SQL Server full blown edition).

You would not need to interact with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL
Server 2000 EE.

You can use MSDE in a production environment, it can be distributed for free
so long as you build your website using Web Matrix or have bought something
like SQL Server 2000 Developer edition for $49.

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

nospam:

i don't think you've ever mentioned what type of application "mom and
pop" would like you to develop, but you have mentioned other apps you've
worked on are similar to auction sites. with this in mind, have a look
at the "msde as a database for web applications"

from the msde "appropriate uses" web page-

MSDE is an ideal solution for low-end Web applications. The following
products and services enable you to redistribute MSDE as a database
server for Web applications:

ASP.NET Web Matrix*
MSDN Universal, Enterprise, and Professional subscriptions
Office XP Developer Edition
SQL Server 2000 Developer, Standard, and Enterprise Editions
Visual Studio .NET Architect, Developer, and Professional Editions
Visual FoxPro 7.0 or 8.0


note, a "production" environment is a term used to define msde once it
has been distributed and installed. there are no limitations for sql
cals here.


as for enterprise manager or query analyzer, those are sql server tools,
not msde tools, so a client license would be required; however, there
are other alternatives:

try some research on:
osql.exe
http://sqlbuddy.sourceforge.net/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/asp-ent-man/
http://www.whitebearconsulting.com/Utilities.htm


jeff clausius
sourcegear corporation


"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in
news:u9LMxtBfDHA.560@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
[color=blue]
> Yes, that's the problem...in a production environment, you just might
> want to connect via enterprise manager OR the mom and pop might just
> want to look at the tables and see what they bought.....
>
> In a PRODUCTION environment...YOU need Enterprise Manager or Query
> Analyzer...the KEY word is PRODUCTION....which means can't go down
> when you need it...which means 24/7..no screwups....
>
> Can anyone here say with 100% certainty that mom and pop OR whoever
> ever needs to diagnose or BACKUP or RESTORE will never ever need
> Enterprise Manager or Query Analyzer? NOOOOOOO.....
>
> WITH Enterprise Manager, I could TALK them through it OVER the
> PHONE....BIG BIG PLUS.......
>
> This is "PRODUCTION" environment...say if mom and pop are the only
> ones there AND for some reason a BACKUP needs to be done....a LOT
> easier and LESS ERROR PRONE with Enterprise Manager.
>
> The problem here is that a LOT of MVP's don't see it from the EYES of
> the CUSTOMER....
>
> I want to give MOM and POP something to BELIEVE IN........MSDE may
> cause them to lose faith when they need it the most.....
>
>
>
> "David Vins" <davidvins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23uYYC1$eDHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> This is solved easiest by simply sending a letter to Microsoft's
>> legal affair's group. However, this may not be necessary. If you take
>> the time[/color]
> to[color=green]
>> read the actually licensing paragraph it says:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color]
>> licenses (CALs) when INTERACTING with > SQL Server 2000 Standard
>> Edition[/color]
> or[color=green]
>> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
>>
>> It does not pertain to your own application using MSDE. It pertains
>> to whether or not in your use of MSDE you utilize its features (i.e.,
>> replication) to then connect to a SQL Server in a production
>> environment.[/color]
> In[color=green]
>> which case, you need CALs, unless of course, you are like the bulk of
>> the license base which has moved to the CPU based licensing methods.
>>
>>
>> "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:O4M6Bz9eDHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>> > READ CAREFULLY
>> >
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp
>> >
>> > Common Rules and Guidelines
>> > Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color]
>> licenses[color=darkred]
>> > (CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or
>> > SQL[/color]
>> Server[color=darkred]
>> > 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
>> >
>> >
>> > Typical Smart A** MVP.......
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
>> > news:eVmuXv9eDHA.3528@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> > > >>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I
>> > > >>> bothered[/color][/color]
> to[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > > read it.
>> > >
>> > > Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and
>> > > you[/color][/color]
> know[color=green]
>> a[color=darkred]
>> > > fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL
>> > > Server/MSDE.
>> > >
>> > > >>> It's says distribution..not production....
>> > >
>> > > What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to[/color][/color]
> development,[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > you
>> > > distribute to production!
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Tony Rogerson
>> > > SQL Server MVP
>> > > http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
>> > > (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

I'd just like to jump in here as a Microsoft employee and officially state
that Tony is correct.

1. MSDE is free for use when used with Web Matrix
2. MSDE can be used in a production environment when the app being used is
built using 1.

We've put together an MSDE FAQ list at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp that might be of help
here.

--
Hope this helps,
Stephen Dybing

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Please reply to the newsgroups only, thanks.

Microsoft highly recommends to all of our customers that they visit the
http://www.microsoft.com/protect site and perform the three straightforward
steps listed to improve your computer's security.
"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
news:OtISJyBfDHA.3248@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color][/color]
> licenses[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> (CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL[/color][/color]
> Server[color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.[/color][/color]
>
> Please re-read that, why would you need to connect MSDE to SQL Server?[/color]
That[color=blue]
> would mean you had 2 SQL Servers (MSDE and SQL Server full blown edition).
>
> You would not need to interact with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or[/color]
SQL[color=blue]
> Server 2000 EE.
>
> You can use MSDE in a production environment, it can be distributed for[/color]
free[color=blue]
> so long as you build your website using Web Matrix or have bought[/color]
something[color=blue]
> like SQL Server 2000 Developer edition for $49.
>
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

Ok.....

That's some clarity...

Now, how much of your Web Application must be made with Web Matrix?
100%, 90%, 50%....

How do we define being built with Web Matrix?
Say if I build it with VS.NET except for a small piece of code that I will
be build with Web Matrix?

Does that allow me to use that web page with SQL Server MSDE?

How about I made with VS.NET, Dreamweaver, TextPad, or Notepad, THEN opened
it up in Web Matrix, saved it. Does that allow me to use that web page with
MSDE in a production environment......

See, how this MSDE FAQ is really unclear and hasn't taken into the fact of
many other ways.....

Why don't you adjust the SQL Server licensing so it doesn't matter what you
use because you are going to have to buy a copy of Windows 2003 server - Web
Edition anyway....and then later when there is a bandwidth need, mom and pop
will buy SQL Server.....

This way, you don't lose mom and pop outright to PHP and MySql as they will
have a production system and also TRUST in that system....



"Stephen Dybing [MSFT]" <stephd@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23DeMjBIfDHA.3324@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> I'd just like to jump in here as a Microsoft employee and officially state
> that Tony is correct.
>
> 1. MSDE is free for use when used with Web Matrix
> 2. MSDE can be used in a production environment when the app being used is
> built using 1.
>
> We've put together an MSDE FAQ list at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp that might be of[/color]
help[color=blue]
> here.
>
> --
> Hope this helps,
> Stephen Dybing
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no[/color]
rights.[color=blue]
> Please reply to the newsgroups only, thanks.
>
> Microsoft highly recommends to all of our customers that they visit the
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect site and perform the three[/color]
straightforward[color=blue]
> steps listed to improve your computer's security.
> "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
> news:OtISJyBfDHA.3248@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
> > >>> Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color]
> > licenses[color=darkred]
> > >>> (CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL[/color]
> > Server[color=darkred]
> > >>> 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.[/color]
> >
> > Please re-read that, why would you need to connect MSDE to SQL Server?[/color]
> That[color=green]
> > would mean you had 2 SQL Servers (MSDE and SQL Server full blown[/color][/color]
edition).[color=blue][color=green]
> >
> > You would not need to interact with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or[/color]
> SQL[color=green]
> > Server 2000 EE.
> >
> > You can use MSDE in a production environment, it can be distributed for[/color]
> free[color=green]
> > so long as you build your website using Web Matrix or have bought[/color]
> something[color=green]
> > like SQL Server 2000 Developer edition for $49.
> >
> > --
> > Tony Rogerson
> > SQL Server MVP
> > http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> > (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

Unfortunetly your comments highlight how little you actually know about .NET
programming etc...

I'd start by actually downloading Web Matrix and actually using it and
you'll notice how things fit together, remember you will need to use a data
access layer to access MSDE and that access layer will need to be .NET.

You get to distribute MSDE if you have Visual Studio.NET (VS.NET) by the
way.

Your original argument (see your post) was that mom and pop would need to
spend a great deal of money in order to get a website - that has been proved
incorrect.

By licencing MSDE for FREE with Web Matrix MS can get greater adoption for
..NET technologies so there really is no need to use MySQL and PHP when all
you need to do is buy a copy of W2003 Web edition and download Web Matrix.
..NET is a very powerful langauge as well and mom and pop will soon realise
the benefits compared to other offerings as they will get their site out
quicker, it will look smarted and more functional and will also scale a lot
better. And they won't need to spend $1500 on MySQL support which is a
significant cost saving.



--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

DEAR LITTLE MVP's WHO HAVE A LOT TO LEARN........


VUNET.COM - McNealy slams IT industry overcharging
By Peter Williams Sun Network Conference, San Francisco [17-09-2003]
Sun chief warns against alienating customers with 'unacceptable' pricing

....UNSUSTAINABLE.......
The computer industry is overcharging customers to an unsustainable and
unacceptable extent, according to Sun Microsystems' chief executive Scott
McNealy (pictured).

CARS DON"T NEED SERVICE EVERY EACH WEEK
......McNealy compared IT with modern cars, which can now drive far further
distance before needing a service, and warned that IT complexity and support
costs needed to be squeezed out.
KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID MVP'S
He described this as the philosophy behind Sun's new initiatives. "Users
told us to be predictable, be simple," he said......

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1143671

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,3...9116406,00.htm

"The world has to be getting a little disappointed in our industry," McNealy
said on Tuesday, addressing attendees of the company's SunNetwork
conference. "We are overcharging in our industry by an order of magnitude,"
or by up to 10 times, he said. "That cost...is going to come out of our
industry in the next five to 10 years."

READ CLOSELY......."unsustainable"



"Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
news:eFlWKTSfDHA.3464@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Unfortunetly your comments highlight how little you actually know about[/color]
..NET[color=blue]
> programming etc...
>
> I'd start by actually downloading Web Matrix and actually using it and
> you'll notice how things fit together, remember you will need to use a[/color]
data[color=blue]
> access layer to access MSDE and that access layer will need to be .NET.
>
> You get to distribute MSDE if you have Visual Studio.NET (VS.NET) by the
> way.
>
> Your original argument (see your post) was that mom and pop would need to
> spend a great deal of money in order to get a website - that has been[/color]
proved[color=blue]
> incorrect.
>
> By licencing MSDE for FREE with Web Matrix MS can get greater adoption for
> .NET technologies so there really is no need to use MySQL and PHP when all
> you need to do is buy a copy of W2003 Web edition and download Web Matrix.
> .NET is a very powerful langauge as well and mom and pop will soon realise
> the benefits compared to other offerings as they will get their site out
> quicker, it will look smarted and more functional and will also scale a[/color]
lot[color=blue]
> better. And they won't need to spend $1500 on MySQL support which is a
> significant cost saving.
>
>
>
> --
> Tony Rogerson
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

I'm sorry, but if your entire argument boils down to needing the SQL
Enterprise Manager or Query Analyzer tools to access a production (live)
environment to correct errors or just 'browse' tables, then you seriously
need to re-examine your development methodology. Likewise, you should
seriously take a look at how you set your client's expectations and how you
deliver your solutions to them.

No one should ever just 'browse' the tables. If they want to browse at data
there is a mechanism for that, it's called queries! And if they want it to
be simple and easy, they can just fire up MS Access and create a new Access
project.

Second, if they want to see ''what they bought' it is very easy for you to
fire up another database where they can see the structure. Then again, if
you're developing an application, why is this not documented for them
already? Didn't you have a design spec you were building from? And if not,
are you just too lazy to run a report in Access or in Visio to get the table
structure back out? How is it you actually do your development?!

Third, if it's to fix problems then you need to go back to the source.
You're not developing too good a product or solution or application or
whatever you care to call it for your client.

It's not too hard to setup Visual Source Safe with your VS.NET and use
versioning and check-in/check-out with your VS.NET projects. Likewise, it's
not too hard to setup a database project and use these with them. And it's
just as easy to setup an installer project to deploy your application to
your website and your tables and logic to your databases (repeatedly,
reliably, over and over again). These are all solid, sound, development
practices.

Furthermore, why aren't you versioning your releases so you can test them?
And if you want rapid or extreme programming, why don't you use an off the
shelf FREE tool like NUnit, or toss the money down for HarnessIt so you can
unit test your applications.

None of this is hard, none of this is expensive. And it's what clients
deserve.

Last, if this has to do with backup and restore, all of this can be done
with scripting, and given to the client easily, so its automated. If they
desire such a level of control with their backend databases that they want
the tools to manage all of this, than by all means, they should be spending
the money on a SQL Server 2000 license!



"nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
news:u9LMxtBfDHA.560@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Yes, that's the problem...in a production environment, you just might want
> to connect via enterprise manager OR the mom and pop might just want to[/color]
look[color=blue]
> at the tables and see what they bought.....
>
> In a PRODUCTION environment...YOU need Enterprise Manager or Query
> Analyzer...the KEY word is PRODUCTION....which means can't go down when[/color]
you[color=blue]
> need it...which means 24/7..no screwups....
>
> Can anyone here say with 100% certainty that mom and pop OR whoever ever
> needs to diagnose or BACKUP or RESTORE will never ever need Enterprise
> Manager or Query Analyzer? NOOOOOOO.....
>
> WITH Enterprise Manager, I could TALK them through it OVER the[/color]
PHONE....BIG[color=blue]
> BIG PLUS.......
>
> This is "PRODUCTION" environment...say if mom and pop are the only ones
> there AND for some reason a BACKUP needs to be done....a LOT easier and[/color]
LESS[color=blue]
> ERROR PRONE with Enterprise Manager.
>
> The problem here is that a LOT of MVP's don't see it from the EYES of the
> CUSTOMER....
>
> I want to give MOM and POP something to BELIEVE IN........MSDE may cause
> them to lose faith when they need it the most.....
>
>
>
> "David Vins" <davidvins@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23uYYC1$eDHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[color=green]
> > This is solved easiest by simply sending a letter to Microsoft's legal
> > affair's group. However, this may not be necessary. If you take the time[/color]
> to[color=green]
> > read the actually licensing paragraph it says:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color]
> > licenses (CALs) when INTERACTING with > SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition[/color]
> or[color=green]
> > SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
> >
> > It does not pertain to your own application using MSDE. It pertains to
> > whether or not in your use of MSDE you utilize its features (i.e.,
> > replication) to then connect to a SQL Server in a production[/color][/color]
environment.[color=blue]
> In[color=green]
> > which case, you need CALs, unless of course, you are like the bulk of[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > license base which has moved to the CPU based licensing methods.
> >
> >
> > "nospam" <n@ntspam.com> wrote in message
> > news:O4M6Bz9eDHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> > > READ CAREFULLY
> > >
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/msde/howtobuy/msdeuse.asp
> > >
> > > Common Rules and Guidelines
> > > Using MSDE does not reduce or eliminate the need for client access[/color]
> > licenses[color=darkred]
> > > (CALs) when interacting with SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition or SQL[/color]
> > Server[color=darkred]
> > > 2000 Enterprise Edition in a production environment.
> > >
> > >
> > > Typical Smart A** MVP.......
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Tony Rogerson" <tonyrogerson@sqlserver.eu.com> wrote in message
> > > news:eVmuXv9eDHA.3528@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > >>> I know more about the licensing of MSDE than you do as I[/color][/color][/color]
bothered[color=blue]
> to[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > read it.
> > > >
> > > > Actually you don't - I know Hal and who he used to work for and you[/color][/color]
> know[color=green]
> > a[color=darkred]
> > > > fraction of a percent compared to him on anything SQL Server/MSDE.
> > > >
> > > > >>> It's says distribution..not production....
> > > >
> > > > What do you think distribution is? You don't distribute to[/color][/color]
> development,[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > you
> > > > distribute to production!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tony Rogerson
> > > > SQL Server MVP
> > > > http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
> > > > (Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >[/color]
> >
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

re: Future Licensing for SQL2000 and Yukon

An exactly what relevance has that got to my post?

--
Tony Rogerson
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqlserverfaq.com?mbr=21
(Create your own groups, Forum, FAQ's and a ton more)