Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We
want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server
and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for
customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on
the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user
database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a
External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server
each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each
little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard
server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external
connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET
bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of
illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred 14 1690
Back under the bridge....
"Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message
news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googlegr oups.com...
Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We
want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server
and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for
customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on
the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user
database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a
External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server
each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each
little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard
server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external
connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET
bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of
illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
re:
!But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each
!little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard
!server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external
!connector licence.
You need Windows CALs only for machines which access shared resources
by connecting/logging into your Windows 2003 Server, i.e., developers, for example.
Users who access the server via HTTP don't need CALs.
As for SQL Server 2005, why not use SQL Server 2005 Express ?
It's quite robust...and it's free. http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx
In fact, you can get *all* Express Editions totally free.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message
news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googlegr oups.com...
Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We
want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server
and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for
customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on
the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user
database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a
External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server
each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each
little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard
server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external
connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET
bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of
illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
What sort of answer is that ????
"Aidy" <ai**@noemail.xxxa.comwrote in message
news:gp*********************@bt.com...
Back under the bridge....
"Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message
news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googlegr oups.com...
>Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
re:
What sort of answer is that ????
Aidy thinks that Alfred is trolling, New Bee.
Imho, he addressed a real concern, which is why I posted a reply to him.
But, let's not turn this thread into a discussion of trolling.
We are remarkably free of trolls in this newsgroup.
If he turns out to have been trolling, as everybody knows, ignoring trolls is best.
Again, I don't think he was trolling.
We'll soon know, by his reply, whether he is trolling or not.
I hope, and think, he is not.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"New Bee" <p@p.comwrote in message news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
What sort of answer is that ????
"Aidy" <ai**@noemail.xxxa.comwrote in message news:gp*********************@bt.com...
>Back under the bridge....
>"Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googleg roups.com...
>>Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
I honestly think you should look seriously at Mono if you want to keep your
costs down. Your components would then be:
Any Linux distro (e.g. RH or SuSE or whatever your customers prefer. Mono
runs the same on all of them IFAIK)
Apache + mod_mono
MySQL or PostgreSQL (if you don't want to pay a SQL Server license) - with
connector dlls (e.g. connector/NET for MySQL)
Mono
Total cost = <CURRENCY>0.00
You can develop on Visual Studio or whatever on Windows with IIS if you
like, and just deploy to your Linux installation.
It does work. I've done it.
Peter
"Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message
news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googlegr oups.com...
Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We
want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server
and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for
customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on
the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user
database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a
External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server
each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each
little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard
server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external
connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET
bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of
illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
you do need a special license to connect sqlserver to an internet
application no matter how many proxies you use. oracle and db2 have
similar rules.
for older sqlserver's there is a connection license, for 2005 you pick
the no cals server process license (charge per processor).
sqlexpress is a free option.
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
re:
!But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each
!little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard
!server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external
!connector licence.
You need Windows CALs only for machines which access shared resources
by connecting/logging into your Windows 2003 Server, i.e., developers, for example.
Users who access the server via HTTP don't need CALs.
As for SQL Server 2005, why not use SQL Server 2005 Express ?
It's quite robust...and it's free.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx
In fact, you can get *all* Express Editions totally free.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message
news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googlegr oups.com...
>Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
re:
you do need a special license to connect sqlserver
Correct, but you don't need it if you don't use SQL Server. :-)
re:
sqlexpress is a free option.
And a good one it is, indeed.
SQL Server 2005 Express is quite robust.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"bruce barker" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
you do need a special license to connect sqlserver to an internet application no matter how many
proxies you use. oracle and db2 have similar rules.
for older sqlserver's there is a connection license, for 2005 you pick the no cals server process
license (charge per processor).
sqlexpress is a free option.
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
Juan T. Llibre wrote:
>re: !But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each !little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard !server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external !connector licence.
You need Windows CALs only for machines which access shared resources by connecting/logging into your Windows 2003 Server, i.e., developers, for example.
Users who access the server via HTTP don't need CALs.
As for SQL Server 2005, why not use SQL Server 2005 Express ? It's quite robust...and it's free.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx
In fact, you can get *all* Express Editions totally free.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/ foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ =================================== "Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googleg roups.com...
>>Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
In fact, since the original title is "ASP.Net ... unaffordable?" it is
important to point out that SQL Server is not a requirement in any way for
an ASP.Net application. Oracle (also licensed), MySql (free), and indeed,
any OLEDB-compliant database may be used. So, the issue of the cost of SQL
Server is irrelevant. Once you get past that non-issue, you're not talking
about much of a difference in cost with regards to using a server-side
technology. OTOH, ASP.Net is Microsoft.Net, and that means it has a
productivity advantage. This means that the total cost, including
development, is likely to be much less, as developer time is probably the
most costly aspect of creating any application.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Printing Components, Email Components,
FTP Client Classes, Enhanced Data Controls, much more.
DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries: http://www.miradyne.net
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.comwrote in message
news:eX**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
re:
>you do need a special license to connect sqlserver
Correct, but you don't need it if you don't use SQL Server. :-)
re:
>sqlexpress is a free option.
And a good one it is, indeed.
SQL Server 2005 Express is quite robust.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP
asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/
foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/
===================================
"bruce barker" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message
news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>you do need a special license to connect sqlserver to an internet application no matter how many proxies you use. oracle and db2 have similar rules.
for older sqlserver's there is a connection license, for 2005 you pick the no cals server process license (charge per processor).
sqlexpress is a free option.
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
>Juan T. Llibre wrote:
>>re: !But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each !little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard !server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external !connector licence.
You need Windows CALs only for machines which access shared resources by connecting/logging into your Windows 2003 Server, i.e., developers, for example.
Users who access the server via HTTP don't need CALs.
As for SQL Server 2005, why not use SQL Server 2005 Express ? It's quite robust...and it's free.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx
In fact, you can get *all* Express Editions totally free.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/ foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ =================================== "Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.google groups.com... Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
You are building an enterprise app that you are reselling?
Two options:
1) For your "little guy", set them up on an ISP that is willing to host your
app under their CALs.
2) Have them buy the Microsoft software for the application.
Realistically, it is extremely unlikely you are talking to clients who have
never bought a server, so the licensing is not a big issue.
As for Linux. Yes, it is cheaper ... at first. Then, you have to pay the
expert to configure and maintain. Now, in this case, that is probably you. I
would recommend you stick with Linux and get all of the money, as you would
not want to share any of the IT world with Microsoft. It is a great deal ...
for you!
I do not see Microsoft as the evil empire in this one, and I think you have
expressed the CALs incorrectly, for ASP.NET. This may be due to improperly
specifying your needs to Microsoft. Not sure.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA http://gregorybeamer.spaces.live.com
*********************************************
Think outside the box!
*********************************************
"Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message
news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googlegr oups.com...
Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We
want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server
and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for
customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on
the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user
database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a
External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server
each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each
little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard
server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external
connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET
bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of
illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
>"OTOH, ASP.Net is Microsoft.Net, and that means it has a productivity
>advantage"
You did have your tongue wedged firmly in your cheek as you said that,
didn't you?
Peter
"Kevin Spencer" <un**********@nothinks.comwrote in message
news:eA**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
In fact, since the original title is "ASP.Net ... unaffordable?" it is
important to point out that SQL Server is not a requirement in any way for
an ASP.Net application. Oracle (also licensed), MySql (free), and indeed,
any OLEDB-compliant database may be used. So, the issue of the cost of SQL
Server is irrelevant. Once you get past that non-issue, you're not talking
about much of a difference in cost with regards to using a server-side
technology. OTOH, ASP.Net is Microsoft.Net, and that means it has a
productivity advantage. This means that the total cost, including
development, is likely to be much less, as developer time is probably the
most costly aspect of creating any application.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Printing Components, Email Components,
FTP Client Classes, Enhanced Data Controls, much more.
DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries: http://www.miradyne.net
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.comwrote in message
news:eX**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>re:
>>you do need a special license to connect sqlserver
Correct, but you don't need it if you don't use SQL Server. :-)
re:
>>sqlexpress is a free option.
And a good one it is, indeed. SQL Server 2005 Express is quite robust.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/ foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ =================================== "bruce barker" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl. ..
>>you do need a special license to connect sqlserver to an internet application no matter how many proxies you use. oracle and db2 have similar rules.
for older sqlserver's there is a connection license, for 2005 you pick the no cals server process license (charge per processor).
sqlexpress is a free option.
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
>>Juan T. Llibre wrote: re: !But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each !little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard !server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external !connector licence.
You need Windows CALs only for machines which access shared resources by connecting/logging into your Windows 2003 Server, i.e., developers, for example.
Users who access the server via HTTP don't need CALs.
As for SQL Server 2005, why not use SQL Server 2005 Express ? It's quite robust...and it's free.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx
In fact, you can get *all* Express Editions totally free.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/ foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ =================================== "Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googl egroups.com... Hello, > we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on the customer site. > The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user database - no windows authentication. > The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence > But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external connector licence. > I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of illegal web applications when the above definition is true. > Thanks for your reply > Alfred >
You did have your tongue wedged firmly in your cheek as you said that,
didn't you?
Not really. ASP.Net 1 involved a certain learning curve, and lacked the kind
of tools and patterns that make ASP.Net 2.0 highly productive, if you know
how to take advantage of them. The Provider pattern, and the several common
Providers that come with it, as well as MasterPages, when combined with
XHTML and CSS, make ASP.Net 2.0 a fairly RAD technology. At least that is my
experience.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Printing Components, Email Components,
FTP Client Classes, Enhanced Data Controls, much more.
DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries: http://www.miradyne.net
"Peter Bradley" <pb******@uwic.ac.ukwrote in message
news:OK**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
"OTOH, ASP.Net is Microsoft.Net, and that means it has a productivity
advantage"
You did have your tongue wedged firmly in your cheek as you said that,
didn't you?
Peter
"Kevin Spencer" <un**********@nothinks.comwrote in message
news:eA**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>In fact, since the original title is "ASP.Net ... unaffordable?" it is important to point out that SQL Server is not a requirement in any way for an ASP.Net application. Oracle (also licensed), MySql (free), and indeed, any OLEDB-compliant database may be used. So, the issue of the cost of SQL Server is irrelevant. Once you get past that non-issue, you're not talking about much of a difference in cost with regards to using a server-side technology. OTOH, ASP.Net is Microsoft.Net, and that means it has a productivity advantage. This means that the total cost, including development, is likely to be much less, as developer time is probably the most costly aspect of creating any application.
-- HTH,
Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP
Printing Components, Email Components, FTP Client Classes, Enhanced Data Controls, much more. DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries: http://www.miradyne.net
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.comwrote in message news:eX**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>re: you do need a special license to connect sqlserver
Correct, but you don't need it if you don't use SQL Server. :-)
re: sqlexpress is a free option.
And a good one it is, indeed. SQL Server 2005 Express is quite robust.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/ foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ =================================== "bruce barker" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl.. . you do need a special license to connect sqlserver to an internet application no matter how many proxies you use. oracle and db2 have similar rules.
for older sqlserver's there is a connection license, for 2005 you pick the no cals server process license (charge per processor).
sqlexpress is a free option.
-- bruce (sqlwork.com)
Juan T. Llibre wrote: re: !But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each !little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard !server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external !connector licence. > You need Windows CALs only for machines which access shared resources by connecting/logging into your Windows 2003 Server, i.e., developers, for example. > Users who access the server via HTTP don't need CALs. > As for SQL Server 2005, why not use SQL Server 2005 Express ? It's quite robust...and it's free. > http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx > In fact, you can get *all* Express Editions totally free. > > > > Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/ foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ =================================== "Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.goog legroups.com... >Hello, >> >we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We >want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server >and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application >for >customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on >the customer site. >> >The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user >database - no windows authentication. >> >The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a >External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server >each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence >> >But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each >little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard >server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the >external >connector licence. >> >I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET >bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of >illegal web applications when the above definition is true. >> >Thanks for your reply >> >Alfred >> >
Heh! That wasn't what I was talking about. I was wondering, really, what
you were comparing with:
Microsoft.NET vs Mono?
Microsoft.NET vs LAMP?
Microsoft.NET vs JSP + enterprise Java beans?
I agree with you that .NET is productive: but I don't think there is a
always a productivity advantage just because it's Microsoft.NET. Sometimes
other choices might be better.
But having said that, I have to admit that I was really being a bit playful.
So I think I'd better bow out now, as gracefully as I can, before I annoy
someone.
:)
Peter
"Kevin Spencer" <un**********@nothinks.comwrote in message
news:Ot*****************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>You did have your tongue wedged firmly in your cheek as you said that, didn't you?
Not really. ASP.Net 1 involved a certain learning curve, and lacked the
kind of tools and patterns that make ASP.Net 2.0 highly productive, if you
know how to take advantage of them. The Provider pattern, and the several
common Providers that come with it, as well as MasterPages, when combined
with XHTML and CSS, make ASP.Net 2.0 a fairly RAD technology. At least
that is my experience.
--
HTH,
Kevin Spencer
Microsoft MVP
Printing Components, Email Components,
FTP Client Classes, Enhanced Data Controls, much more.
DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries: http://www.miradyne.net
"Peter Bradley" <pb******@uwic.ac.ukwrote in message
news:OK**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>"OTOH, ASP.Net is Microsoft.Net, and that means it has a productivity advantage"
You did have your tongue wedged firmly in your cheek as you said that, didn't you?
Peter
"Kevin Spencer" <un**********@nothinks.comwrote in message news:eA**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>In fact, since the original title is "ASP.Net ... unaffordable?" it is important to point out that SQL Server is not a requirement in any way for an ASP.Net application. Oracle (also licensed), MySql (free), and indeed, any OLEDB-compliant database may be used. So, the issue of the cost of SQL Server is irrelevant. Once you get past that non-issue, you're not talking about much of a difference in cost with regards to using a server-side technology. OTOH, ASP.Net is Microsoft.Net, and that means it has a productivity advantage. This means that the total cost, including development, is likely to be much less, as developer time is probably the most costly aspect of creating any application.
-- HTH,
Kevin Spencer Microsoft MVP
Printing Components, Email Components, FTP Client Classes, Enhanced Data Controls, much more. DSI PrintManager, Miradyne Component Libraries: http://www.miradyne.net
"Juan T. Llibre" <no***********@nowhere.comwrote in message news:eX**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... re: you do need a special license to connect sqlserver
Correct, but you don't need it if you don't use SQL Server. :-)
re: sqlexpress is a free option.
And a good one it is, indeed. SQL Server 2005 Express is quite robust.
Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/ foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ =================================== "bruce barker" <no****@nospam.comwrote in message news:%2******************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl. .. you do need a special license to connect sqlserver to an internet application no matter how many proxies you use. oracle and db2 have similar rules. > for older sqlserver's there is a connection license, for 2005 you pick the no cals server process license (charge per processor). > sqlexpress is a free option. > -- bruce (sqlwork.com)
Juan T. Llibre wrote: >re: >!But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each >!little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard >!server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the >external >!connector licence. >> >You need Windows CALs only for machines which access shared resources >by connecting/logging into your Windows 2003 Server, i.e., >developers, for example. >> >Users who access the server via HTTP don't need CALs. >> >As for SQL Server 2005, why not use SQL Server 2005 Express ? >It's quite robust...and it's free. >> >http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx >> >In fact, you can get *all* Express Editions totally free. >> >> >> >> >Juan T. Llibre, asp.net MVP >asp.net faq : http://asp.net.do/faq/ >foros de asp.net, en español : http://asp.net.do/foros/ >=================================== >"Alfred Sehmueller" <al***************@gmx.dewrote in message >news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.goo glegroups.com... >>Hello, >>> >>we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We >>want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server >>and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application >>for >>customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on >>the customer site. >>> >>The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user >>database - no windows authentication. >>> >>The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a >>External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server >>each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence >>> >>But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each >>little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard >>server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the >>external >>connector licence. >>> >>I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET >>bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of >>illegal web applications when the above definition is true. >>> >>Thanks for your reply >>> >>Alfred >>> >>
On Apr 25, 4:03 pm, "Peter Bradley" <pbrad...@uwic.ac.ukwrote:
I honestly think you should look seriously at Mono if you want to keep your
costs down. Your components would then be:
Any Linux distro (e.g. RH or SuSE or whatever your customers prefer. Mono
runs the same on all of them IFAIK)
Apache + mod_mono
MySQL or PostgreSQL (if you don't want to pay a SQL Server license) - with
connector dlls (e.g. connector/NET for MySQL)
Mono
Total cost = <CURRENCY>0.00
You can develop on Visual Studio or whatever on Windows with IIS if you
like, and just deploy to your Linux installation.
It does work. I've done it.
Peter
"Alfred Sehmueller" <alfred.sehmuel...@gmx.dewrote in message
news:11**********************@c18g2000prb.googlegr oups.com...
Hello,
we were in contact with the microsoft licence hotline last week. We
want to build a asp.net application based upon a windows 2003 server
and Microsoft sql-server 2005. It will be a commerical application for
customers. The question was which microsoft licences are required on
the customer site.
The technology: ASP.NET, One central SQL-Server login, internal user
database - no windows authentication.
The answer: Each user needs a Windows 2003 Standard Server CAL or a
External Connector licence (never heard that before). For SQL-Server
each user needs a CAL or the SQL-Server a processor licence
But this means: Never mind how your application is built, for each
little webshop, webboard, etc. hosted on a windows 2003 Standard
server you'll need an unlimited amount of Windows CALs or the external
connector licence.
I was never a friend of Linux & PHP - but how should IIS & ASP.NET
bear up against Linux & PHP then? I guess there are thousands of
illegal web applications when the above definition is true.
Thanks for your reply
Alfred
Well, IMHO, If you use mono in comercial applications, then you
should buy a comercial license. Anyway, it won't be so expensive as
Microsoft one's
"Cubaman" <os******************@googlemail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@r35g2000prh.googlegro ups.com...
Well, IMHO, If you use mono in comercial applications, then you
should buy a comercial license. Anyway, it won't be so expensive as
Microsoft one's
As far as I can tell, there is no commercial license for Mono. Do you have
a link?
If there is one (for support etc), it might be worth it.
Why do you say that someone "should" buy a commercial license? Do you mean
morally? Or were you thinking that such a license would be necessary for
support, for example?
Commercial licenses are available for MySQL, of course - but no-one thinking
of using SQL Express instead of SQL Server (as someone on the list
suggested) is going to buy one, I wouldn't imagine. Or would you argue that
if you're going to use SQL Express in a commercial application you should
buy a SQL Server license?
Peter This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: John Wellesz |
last post by:
Hello,
It would be great if there was an option to tell PHP to let the user
manage all the HTTP headers instead of sending what it thinks is good for
the programmer...
For example when you...
|
by: 43 |
last post by:
how come m$Office isn't written in .net?
how come Open Office isn't written in j2ee?
how come dbms systems aren't written in either?
how come browsers aren't written in either?
how come...
|
by: Simon Harvey |
last post by:
Hi everyone,
I am fairly new to learning about xsl and xml, but one thing I have noticed
is that anyone offering a tutorial or lesson on it seems to think that its
the most incredible invention...
|
by: Alexander Baranovsky |
last post by:
LISPPA (List Processing based on the Polymorphic Arrays) technology is a way
to process dynamic data structures (lists, trees and more) without using
pointers. LISPPA uses polymorphic arrays as a...
|
by: Bill Law |
last post by:
Great Company on the Maryland Eastern Shore needs a DB2 Systems
Programmer and DBA (DB2)
to join their IT team.
The selected candidate MUST have a BS degree and both DB2 DBA And DB2
Systems...
|
by: Tom Cole |
last post by:
I bet 50% of the posts I've read lately have had at least one bad thing
to say about every website or book dedicated to javascript.
There are clearly a few posters (you know who you are) who...
|
by: Master Programmer |
last post by:
Thinking of learning VB.NET? New programmer? Thinking of Moving over
from VB 6.0?
Read on friend, let me help you make a more informed decision.........
Microsoft are a pathetic company,...
|
by: amogan |
last post by:
**If interested & qualified, please reply with your resume directly to
amogan@google.com**
Referrals are always welcome!!
Network System Test Engineer - Mountain View
This position is...
|
by: discovery29 |
last post by:
Hello,
I planned to do E-Indenting Project with The Great Mind Challenge 2007 by IBM and following are the technology platform need to use in that project but im new
to IBM products like DB2...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new...
| |