ASP.NET great technology but unaffordable?

[Alfred Sehmueller]

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

 

[Aidy]

Back under the bridge....

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

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.

 

[New Bee]

What sort of answer is that ????

Back under the bridge....

 

[Juan T. Llibre]

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.

 

[Peter Bradley]

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

 

[bruce barker]

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]

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.

 

[Kevin Spencer]

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

 

[Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)]

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.

 

[Peter Bradley]

"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]

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]

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

 

[Cubaman]

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

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

 

[Peter Bradley]

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