News, tips, advice, support for Windows, Office, PCs & more. Tech help. No bull. We're community supported by donations from our Plus Members, and proud of it
Home icon Home icon Home icon Email icon RSS icon
  • CERN Is Ditching Microsoft Due to 10x Higher License Fees

    Posted on CADesertRat Comment on the AskWoody Lounge

    Home Forums AskWoody support Windows CERN Is Ditching Microsoft Due to 10x Higher License Fees

    This topic contains 12 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Ascaris 5 months, 3 weeks ago.

    • Author
      Posts
    • #1842414 Reply

      CADesertRat
      AskWoody Plus

      MS may be “out pricing” themselves if CERN is ditching Windows and others may follow.

      https://www.pcmag.com/news/368987/cern-is-ditching-microsoft-due-to-10x-higher-license-fees

      The largest particle physics laboratory in the world and home of the Large Hadron Collider can’t afford Microsoft’s software licensing fees anymore. 

      Don't take yourself so seriously, no one else does 🙂
      4 Win 10 Pro currently 1809 (3 Desktops, 1 Laptop).

      3 users thanked author for this post.
    • #1842676 Reply

      Geo
      AskWoody Plus

      Since they will be using open source, I wonder if it will be based on one of the Linux OS’s ?

      • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by  Geo.
    • #1842789 Reply

      CADesertRat
      AskWoody Plus

      It just say’s “Many open Source programs” so I would guess that Linux may among them.

      Don't take yourself so seriously, no one else does 🙂
      4 Win 10 Pro currently 1809 (3 Desktops, 1 Laptop).

      1 user thanked author for this post.
      Geo
    • #1842906 Reply

      Alex5723
      AskWoody Plus

      so I would guess that Linux may among them

      CERN is using Linux for ages and even developed some like CERN CentOS..

      https://linux.web.cern.ch/linux/centos8/

      3 users thanked author for this post.
      • #1844183 Reply

        Charlie
        AskWoody Plus

        I read somewhere once that many scientists and the scientific community in general prefer to use open source such as Unix or Linux.  It gives them the ability to write their own specialized  programs to suit their needs.

        Win 7 Home Premium, x64, Intel i3-2120 3.3GHz, Groups B & L

        • #1844482 Reply

          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          Charlie  #1844183  : I am part of the “scientific community” in question, and that information is exactly right, particularly for those scientists and engineers working in Europe. Not only we use Linux but, as in my case for example, working for the government in the USA, we also use macOS quite a bit, as it is a UNIX-like language supported by a large organization (Apple in this case), the kind the government IT watchdogs prefer to have contracts with. The macOS UNIX-like command-line is ready accessible through the “Terminal” application (the equivalent of Windows DOS application “cmd.exe”). These days, I do most of the work that requires writing software using macOS, and when necessary move the source to a LINUX machine and compile it there, to obtain an executable I can share with those collaborating colleagues that run some LINUX distro. Most system calls are identical, making it very easy to port the source code, often unchanged, from macOS to LINUX (or also to BSD/FreeBSD) and vice versa.

          Windows is available in the US government, as well (it being supported by another big organization: MS) but many groups, including the one I work with, prefer to use LINUX and, or macOS.

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

    • #1843242 Reply

      OscarCP
      AskWoody Plus

      I think it’s going to be interesting to see what that initiative to replace MS applications’ software with CERN’s own comes up with, besides a replacement for Skype. After all, both the Web and its browsers were invented there. They’ve done also a few other things there, perhaps worth mentioning, such as finding the Higgs.

      https://home.cern/science/computing/birth-web/short-history-web

      Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

    • #1843520 Reply

      Alex5723
      AskWoody Plus

      South Korea’s Government is Switching to Linux

      https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2019/05/south-korea-swith-to-linux

      First South Korea and Now China: The Move Away From Microsoft Windows

      http://techrights.org/2019/05/28/china-microsoft-windows/

      • #1844661 Reply

        Ascaris
        AskWoody_MVP

        IBM reported switching to Macs, and they say they saved money despite the higher initial cost.

        Ernie Ball, manufacturer of guitar strings, switched to Linux after BSA (Business Software Alliance, founded by Microsoft) operatives “audited” them and found what they consider to be violations of their arcane, Byzantine licensing requirements, coerced a settlement out of them (would you want to go to court against Microsoft lawyers if you were a relatively small company like Ernie Ball?), then chose to name and shame the company to make an example of them in their advertising.

        This is how Microsoft treats its supposed corporate “partners?”  They write licensing rules and contracts that make US IRS (Internal Revenue Service) regulations look simple and straightforward, then they send enforcers to your place of business to look for a reason to coerce even more money from you, then use the example to try to scare other businesses into paying?  And as a Microsoft customer, you’re expected (and obligated to, by the terms of the contract, presumably) permit this to go on?

        Are these racketeers running a protection scheme?  It’s hard to tell the difference, other than that this racket runs under the guise of legality. At least with actual mobsters, there was a chance that some law enforcement official somewhere would be willing to stand up to them.  No such help here, though.

        With “partners” like this, who needs enemies?  Everyone likes to say that Linux can’t do this or Linux can’t do that… but what about what the makers of Linux won’t do to you that your existing “partner” will, cheerfully?  New software that does do the things that are needed can be developed, or existing software can be modified, especially when it’s open source.  It takes money, but how much is it worth to not have to play the protection scheme game and to be dependent on a predatory entity like Microsoft?

        Group "L" (KDE Neon User Edition 5.17.4).

        5 users thanked author for this post.
        • #1844670 Reply

          Sessh
          AskWoody Lounger

          ..and so, the abandoning of Microsoft has begun. Can’t say this couldn’t be seen coming years ago and they deserve what they have coming to them.

          2 users thanked author for this post.
        • #1844790 Reply

          OscarCP
          AskWoody Plus

          According to Ascaris #1844661  : “IBM reported switching to Macs, and they say they saved money despite the higher initial cost.

          And here there is something about that:

          https://www.computerworld.com/article/3131906/ibm-says-macs-are-even-cheaper-to-run-than-it-thought.html

          IBM was the original home of Bill Gates’ DOS operating system, before he was “The” Bill Gates. So such a turnabout would be rather historical, I would think.

          Windows 7 Professional, SP1, x64 Group B & macOS + Linux (Mint) => Win7 Group W + Mac&Lx

          2 users thanked author for this post.
          • #1845091 Reply

            Ascaris
            AskWoody_MVP

            After I wrote that post yesterday, I looked for some more info on the former joint venture between Microsoft and IBM that was supposed to provide us with OS/2 and propel IBM back to the top of the PC market they invented, but that instead got us MS Windows and a PC market with no IBM PCs (by that name or by the newer PS/2 moniker) nor OS/2 in it.

            I found this Ars Technica article, and it’s an interesting read.  I’d seen the story before from other sources, but there are always new angles and details that come up, and this one highlighted IBM’s inability to fully conceptualize the PC as a standalone computer that didn’t need a big (IBM) mainframe somewhere to reach its full potential.  IBM was the mainframe king, and the role they envisioned for their PC was as a more capable kind of terminal that still had its tether to the mother ship, and they failed to grasp what Microsoft was doing, and why.

            The article says that IBM didn’t even perceive that MS Windows 3.0 was a threat, even though MS was supposed to be developing OS/2 with IBM.  After all, Windows 3.0 would be adding to the capabilities of their PS/2 offerings, right?  When IBM proposed to MS that Big Blue get exclusive rights to Windows, though, the way that IBM could only wish they’d had the foresight to do with PC-DOS/MS-DOS, Microsoft refused.  From the way it was described in Ars, it seems that IBM genuinely expected MS to agree to this.

            MS had made a fortune selling MS-DOS to every OEM in the PC market except IBM, which had purchased the rights to the IBM-only version “PC-DOS” outright, with the stipulation that MS would also be allowed to sell it to anyone it wanted.  It had initially seemed like a sweet deal for IBM, almost a “sucker” move from what must have seemed like the “lightweight” Gates.  Who would buy MS-DOS if PC-DOS came with every new PC sold anyway?

            Who indeed.  IBM was thinking like Big Blue, the mainframe maker, and they didn’t grasp where Gates was coming from when he asked for the rights to distribute MS-DOS independently as part of the PC-DOS agreement in lieu of a per-copy royalty as IBM had expected.

            From that perspective, it would have been foolish for MS to grant exclusive distribution rights for Windows 3.0 to IBM.  Gates had bet big on a PC market outside of the IBM offerings, and it had paid off in spades.  MS knew all too well that there was a pile of money to be made in the clone market in addition to the “genuine” PS/2s, which would also be able to run Windows, so it almost seems quaint that IBM would ever have thought otherwise.

            Finally, IBM “got” what was going on.  They considered MS to be a partner in developing an OS for their new PS/2, just as they had for the PC series before, but their own partner became their greatest competition in the OS space.  It was a battle that IBM lost, and they lost on the hardware front also, with the PC market that had flourished because of openness rejecting a return to the proprietary dungeon IBM was trying to put them in.  The genie was already out of the bottle, and it was not going back in.

            IBM’s example of not locking down the architecture to prevent clones on the original PC series was something Apple had learned quite well by the time they released their first Macintosh.

            Group "L" (KDE Neon User Edition 5.17.4).

            4 users thanked author for this post.
    • #1844676 Reply

      Cybertooth
      AskWoody Plus

      Ernie Ball, manufacturer of guitar strings, switched to Linux after BSA (Business Software Alliance, founded by Microsoft) operatives “audited” them and found what they consider to be violations of their arcane, Byzantine licensing requirements, coerced a settlement out of them (would you want to go to court against Microsoft lawyers if you were a relatively small company like Ernie Ball?), then chose to name and shame the company to make an example of them in their advertising.

      This is one of the reasons that I read every EULA for every piece of software that I install on any of my computers: if it contains the word “audit” in it, the software is immediately disqualified from consideration.

      It’s a mystery to me why these audit clauses are included even in supposedly free (non-paid) versions of software; the first time I ran across one of these Audit Clause critters was for VMware Player. There was no exception in their EULA for the free Player. I tried calling them to ask why they would demand that I keep records of my usage of the software, and that I let them audit such usage, if I had not even been required to pay for the software. The first couple of secretaries or whatever that I reached, insisted that they would not audit a user of their Player. But then I would ask why they don’t state that unequivocally in the EULA for the Player, and all I got was further reassurance not backed up by anything.

      I tried to reach a variety of VMware sales and other offices; eventually they stopped answering the phone, even new VMware offices I was trying to reach in different parts of the country. It’s as if they had placed a company-wide block on my phone number.

      A reasonable question would be why they would want to audit the user of a free product; my response to that question would be to ask why they would put an audit clause in the EULA for a free product in the first place.

       

      • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by  Cybertooth.
      • This reply was modified 5 months, 3 weeks ago by  Cybertooth.
      7 users thanked author for this post.

    Please follow the -Lounge Rules- no personal attacks, no swearing, and politics/religion are relegated to the Rants forum.

    Reply To: CERN Is Ditching Microsoft Due to 10x Higher License Fees

    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
    Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.