Hi, Ye, I was about to ask if anyone has looked into Samba 4 or 389 Directory Server, as a free, open source replacement to AD.
Best, Attila On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Bolesław Tokarski < boleslaw.tokar...@tieto.com> wrote: > Hello, > > > On 02/12/2013 01:32 PM, Chris Rowson wrote: > >> How do you deal with Active Directory licensing? Are you buying a Server >> Client Access Licenses for each Ubuntu machine? >> >> I got the information. It appears we own an Enterprise CAL suite per > employee, so it does not matter whether he uses Ubuntu or Windows on the > client machine. It seems a better approach than a per-device licensing as > it seems we have much more devices than users. > > As I am thinking about minimising the cost of an Active Directory > instance, this may be problematic. We use SSSD to authenticate directly > against a domain controller, so each device actively connects to the DC, so > license-wise we would need to have a per-device/user license anyway. > However, just the policy part does not seem to be a problem - it is just > one server getting LDAP details from AD. > > I remember there was some change in Microsoft's licensing that they added > a paragraph about multiplexing devices, so if you used a login forwarder > (say, an LDAP proxy) you would still need to count devices connecting from > behind the multiplexer. I am not sure how the MS license applies to a Samba > 4 Domain Controller server running on par with Windows DC - it is not a > multiplexing device, it authenticates users on its own. > > I saw a number of organizations approaching the CAL licensing more or less > seriously. Most small businesses that just want 'a server' buy the default > Windows Server which comes with 5 CALs, never caring that they actually > break the license by allowing it to be used by their 20-30 employees. This > is a perfect example why you should do better investigation when comparing > costs Linux versus Windows. > > If you want to be paranoid, you may note Microsoft patents. As recent > trials show, Microsoft owns even such bizarre patents as "Filesystem > containing both short and long file name", which by accident seems to be > all of VFAT, FAT32 and NTFS, so if you are using a FAT32 filesystem on a > USB stick and you are a sole Linux user, you should still pay Microsoft for > using their patented technology. See also: http://www.osnews.com/story/** > 24800/Microsoft_Earns_More_**from_Android_than_Windows_**Phone_7<http://www.osnews.com/story/24800/Microsoft_Earns_More_from_Android_than_Windows_Phone_7> > > > Cheers, > Ballock > > -- > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~**enterprise-ubuntu<https://launchpad.net/~enterprise-ubuntu> > Post to : > enterprise-ubuntu@lists.**launchpad.net<enterprise-ubuntu@lists.launchpad.net> > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~**enterprise-ubuntu<https://launchpad.net/~enterprise-ubuntu> > More help : > https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelp<https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp> >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~enterprise-ubuntu Post to : enterprise-ubuntu@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~enterprise-ubuntu More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp