Are we Luddites?

On January 29, 2013, in news, by

Watching Lucy Worsley’s Elegance and Decadence episode http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b014jbyr/Elegance_and_Decadence_The_Age_of_the_Regency_The_Many_and_the_Few_A_Divided_Decade/ where they are talking about the textile workers that violently protested against the technology. – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Luddite is often used as a term describing people who don’t want to change.  At all.

I personally think we, those of us used to on premise deployments – aren’t Luddites as much as we’re not liking how much it feels like we’re being shoved to cloud deployments that ensure that vendors will get constant revenues and us small businesses won’t get a fair price for technology.  Take for example this blog post – http://blogs.technet.com/b/sbs/archive/2012/12/12/using-windows-server-2012-essentials-with-more-than-25-users.aspx  On first blush the ability to grow past 25 users easily is a huge win for small businesses.  On the other hand this senttence:  “Keep in mind that the ability to run downgrade bits does not change the licensing or support terms in which you can use the product you purchased. So if you purchase Windows Server 2012 Standard, you will need Windows Server 2012 CALs even if you choose to downgrade an instance to run Windows Server 2012 Essentials.”  Means that if you wanted to standardize on HyperV wrapped deployments of Essentials you’ll either need to try to get the free HyperV 2012 working (I gave up as it needs Windows 8 to manage it and trying to deploy it in a workgroup leads one to pull your hair out), or you’ll have to fork out for Server 2012 cals in order to properly license if all you do is deploy Essentials – and nothing else – in a HyperV deployment.

Why would you want to do such a thing?  Because virtualization gives you options.  And this Luddite thinks that Microsoft is being a Luddite to not let small businesses have options like HyperV available with the downgrade right option of Essentials.

To counter, I’d recommend that you look at the free Vmware ESX instead with their more GUI/WEB client to manage a virtual server.  As other Luddites have said, it’s what Microsoft should do with their HyperV deployments instead of recommending System Center (which does not have smb friendly licensing at all).

Bottom line, I don’t think I’m a luddite.  I think I’m trying to keep Microsoft thinking about how small businesses are price sensitive and all of these price increases lately are making us feel like we’re being nickel and dime’d a lot.

I want a fair price for change.  That’s my ask.  Right now all of these changes and monthly fees are adding up.

 

One Response to Are we Luddites?

  1. EricE says:

    Nope, I’m no more a luddite than you are – and I’m offended that vendors are blantely trying to soft peddle their desire for steady revenue streams as such. There are certain instances where cloud may make sense, but it’s not a magic “fix it” wand either.

    Thanks for the heads up on the Server 2012/Essentials downgrade rights nuance. I’m assuming if I have SBS 2011 and SBS CALs that this wouldn’t be an issue.

    MultiPoint Server Premium (at least 2008) comes with 1+1 licensing so you can use one instance to host your HyperV – but the multpoint bits are there, which makes for more clutter than I care for on a hyperv host (your told to just ignore and not use them).

    And yes, managing Server core in a workgroup is rediculously complex and stupid. That MS still hasn’t figured out a way to make manging core outside of a domain easier is beyond annoying.