Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the project?

[Colin Finck]

Hi everybody,

I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows Server 
2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.

It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over 
RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing 
work on our actual target platform. Considering that some developers 
even use a non-Windows platform for development work, it might simplify 
their work as well.

We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave, 
Testslave, whatever), but at least native building could be done by any 
Windows version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP Pro 
license myself (German though).

As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear 
your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody 
knows a cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even donate 
one (e.g. unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused license after 
getting Server 2008, etc.)
English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this 
would only be a last resort :-)

Cheers,

Colin


P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM 
available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just let 
me know and I could set it up.

[Jérôme Gardou]

I for one, only have a winXP pro license on which I do my tests.

Le 14/01/2011 16:46, Colin Finck a écrit :
>  
>  Hi everybody,
>
>  I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows 
>  Server 2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.
>
>  It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over 
>  RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing 
>  work on our actual target platform. Considering that some developers 
>  even use a non-Windows platform for development work, it might 
>  simplify their work as well.
>
>  We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave, 
>  Testslave, whatever), but at least native building could be done by 
>  any Windows version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP 
>  Pro license myself (German though).
>
>  As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear 
>  your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody 
>  knows a cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even 
>  donate one (e.g. unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused 
>  license after getting Server 2008, etc.)
>  English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this 
>  would only be a last resort :-)
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Colin
>
>
>  P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM 
>  available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just 
>  let me know and I could set it up.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Zachary Gorden]

Any reason we're going with 2k3 and not a newer one?

2011/1/14 Jérôme Gardou <jerome.gardou(a)laposte.net>

>   I for one, only have a winXP pro license on which I do
> my tests.
>
>  Le 14/01/2011 16:46, Colin Finck a écrit :
>
>
> >   Hi everybody,
> >
> >  I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows Server
> >  2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.
> >
> >  It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over
> >  RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing work on
> >  our actual target platform. Considering that some developers even use a
> >  non-Windows platform for development work, it might simplify their work as
> >  well.
> >
> >  We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave, Testslave,
> >  whatever), but at least native building could be done by any Windows
> >  version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP Pro license
> >  myself (German though).
> >
> >  As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear
> >  your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody knows a
> >  cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even donate one (e.g.
> >  unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused license after getting
> >  Server 2008, etc.)
> >  English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this would
> >  only be a last resort :-)
> >
> >  Cheers,
> >
> >  Colin
> >
> >
> >  P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM
> >  available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just let me
> >  know and I could set it up.
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Pierre Schweitzer]

Hi,
our main target is w2k3, so this is quite logical to use it.
I know user-mode may target any Windows release, but in such case, I guess that more devs
have some Windows 7 running than a w2k3. So, testing user-mode stuff is quite easy.
Kernel-mode tests are really harder.
Then, as I already expressed, I really push that idea.
Regards,
P. Schweitzer

>   Any reason we're going with 2k3 and not a newer
> one?
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Colin Finck]

Pierre Schweitzer <pierre.schweitzer(a)reactos.org> wrote:
>   Then, as I already expressed, I really push that idea.
Thanks for stating your opinion here.

Come on folks, I'd like to hear your opinions as well. Pierre can't be 
the only one who still performs testing under Windows. At least I hope 
so.. ;-)

By the way, I also got the idea of using a second Windows Home Server 
license to regularly run the Winetests against NT 5.2. Would be too bad 
if they actually contain wrong assumptions and not our code.


- Colin

[Roel Messiant]

Hi,

2011/1/17 Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org>rg>:
>   Come on folks, I'd like to hear your opinions as
> well. Pierre can't be the
>  only one who still performs testing under Windows. At least I hope so.. ;-) 
Not much more to add to what he said. I'm not against a later version
either though, if they have additional kernel-mode features we want to
implement, but that's maybe more of a long-term opinion.

>   By the way, I also got the idea of using a second
> Windows Home Server
>  license to regularly run the Winetests against NT 5.2. Would be too bad if
>  they actually contain wrong assumptions and not our code. 
Wine already performs testing on several Win2K3 setups, so this would
mostly be duplicate effort.

WBR,

Roel Messiant

[Sylvain Petreolle]

----- Message d'origine ----
>   De : Roel Messiant <roelmessiant(a)gmail.com>
>  À : ReactOS Development List <ros-dev(a)reactos.org>
>  Envoyé le : Lun 17 janvier 2011, 17h 37min 25s
>  Objet : Re: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the project?
>  
>  
>  Wine  already performs testing on several Win2K3 setups, so this would
>  mostly be  duplicate effort.
>  
>  WBR,
>  
>  Roel  Messiant 
Thats right, but we can't compare results with them easily.
Having it integrated with testman would show exactly where results differ.

We also added our tests that Wine doesn't run.

[Ged Murphy]

I think it's much more important to have a Windows build machine than it is
to have an remote machine devs can use as as a test bed.

Would anyone actually use a remote machine for development?
I'd expect most devs to already have windows machines, I can't see how can
you be a ros/nt dev without access to at least one NT5 box.

Ged.


-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Colin Finck
Sent: 17 January 2011 16:05
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the
project?

Pierre Schweitzer <pierre.schweitzer(a)reactos.org> wrote:
>   Then, as I already expressed, I really push that idea.
Thanks for stating your opinion here.

Come on folks, I'd like to hear your opinions as well. Pierre can't be 
the only one who still performs testing under Windows. At least I hope 
so.. ;-)

By the way, I also got the idea of using a second Windows Home Server 
license to regularly run the Winetests against NT 5.2. Would be too bad 
if they actually contain wrong assumptions and not our code.


- Colin

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Johannes Anderwald]

>   Would anyone actually use a remote machine for
> development?
>  I'd expect most devs to already have windows machines, I can't see how can
>  you be a ros/nt dev without access to at least one NT5 box.
>  
>  Ged. 
+ 1

Johannes

[Colin Finck]

Ged Murphy wrote:
>   I think it's much more important to have a Windows
> build machine than it is
>  to have an remote machine devs can use as as a test bed. 
Olaf's Windows build slaves are currently being integrated into our 
BuildBot.
As stated, I could also donate and set up a Windows XP license to be 
used as another Buildslave if there is a need.


>   I can't see how can
>  you be a ros/nt dev without access to at least one NT5 box. 
Change NT5 to NT5.2 and the list should become quite short.

As long as no one proposes a major change, we are still heading for 
NT5.2 compatibility (at least kernel-wise). And then we have to verify 
that all our API implementations are not just compatible to some NT5 
version but 100% compatible to NT5.2.

Encountering an NT5.2-incompatible API can be as easy as testing 
screensavers (see r28953/r28955). Tell me how to avoid such mistakes in 
the future if we don't consequently test against NT5.2.


- Colin

[Ged Murphy]

Colin Finck wrote:

>   Change NT5 to NT5.2 and the list should become quite
> short.
>  
>  As long as no one proposes a major change, we are still heading for 
>  NT5.2 compatibility (at least kernel-wise). And then we have to verify 
>  that all our API implementations are not just compatible to some NT5 
>  version but 100% compatible to NT5.2. 
I think it's more important to test against XP from an API level as that's
what most
software is installed on
 
>   Encountering an NT5.2-incompatible API can be as easy
> as testing 
>  screensavers (see r28953/r28955). Tell me how to avoid such mistakes in 
>  the future if we don't consequently test against NT5.2. 
Whilst parts of our kernel try to target 5.2 changes, from a testing
perspective it should be
pretty much identical to 5.1.

IMO, unless you're a kernel dev interested in implementing some of the more
elegant kernel
features in 5.2, then anyone with a 5.1 box is more than adequately setup
and I can't think of
any worthwhile advantage in having a 5.2 install.

Ged.

[Pierre Schweitzer]

Hi,

>   Whilst parts of our kernel try to target 5.2 changes,
> from a testing
>  perspective it should be
>  pretty much identical to 5.1.
>
>  IMO, unless you're a kernel dev interested in implementing some of the more
>  elegant kernel
>  features in 5.2, then anyone with a 5.1 box is more than adequately setup
>  and I can't think of
>  any worthwhile advantage in having a 5.2 install. 
For your information, between NT5.1 and NT5.2, MCBs handling has been rewritten. This is
not a minor change, as it brings the idea of "base" MCB for dealing with large
MCBs. Then testing against Windows XP looks just really hazardous for such case.
We are targeting Windows 2003 for kernel, why the hell would we test against something
else?!

>   Would anyone actually use a remote machine for
> development?
>  I'd expect most devs to already have windows machines, I can't see how can
>  you be a ros/nt dev without access to at least one NT5 box. 
Then, to answer that "old" point. As a ReactOS dev, I personally don't daily
use Windows. And yes, I've a Windows devenv available (MSVC, and such) but on Windows
7. Which is no use for such tests. I also have a Windows 2000 available, but once more...
It's NT5, so...

I keep pushing, it IS useful for the project. Furthermore, how could we explain we
implement Windows 2003 without having any Windows 2003 for our devs?

Regards,
P. Schweitzer

[Olaf Siejka]

I think Ged is refering to MSVC-based buildslave more than just building on
Windows.

[Ged Murphy]

On 18 January 2011 18:51, Pierre Schweitzer
<pierre.schweitzer(a)reactos.org> wrote:
>  
>  Hi,
>
> >   Whilst parts of our kernel try to target 5.2
> > changes, from a testing
> >  perspective it should be
> >  pretty much identical to 5.1.
> >
> >  IMO, unless you're a kernel dev interested in implementing some of the more
> >  elegant kernel
> >  features in 5.2, then anyone with a 5.1 box is more than adequately setup
> >  and I can't think of
> >  any worthwhile advantage in having a 5.2 install. 
>  For your information, 
For my information??
You need to start your sentences a little more politely


>   between NT5.1 and NT5.2, MCBs handling has been
> rewritten. This is not a minor
>  change, as it brings the idea of "base" MCB for dealing with large MCBs. Then
>  testing against Windows XP looks just really hazardous for such case.
>  We are targeting Windows 2003 for kernel, why the hell would we test against something
> else?! 
 I started my my point with :
"unless you're a kernel dev interested in implementing some of the
more elegant kernel features in 5.2"
of which you and MCB's fit this statement.

You're talking about testing mappings via the FsRtl kernel API's,
which isn't important to an end user nor 99% of devs who work on
reactos.
It's a feature you choose to implement with regard to how the control
blocks are handled.

>  
> >   Would anyone actually use a remote machine for
> > development?
> >  I'd expect most devs to already have windows machines, I can't see how can
> >  you be a ros/nt dev without access to at least one NT5 box. 
>  Then, to answer that "old" point. 
Why is that an "old" point? We've only recently started discussing it.


>   I've a Windows devenv available (MSVC, and such)
> but on Windows 7.
>  Which is no use for such tests. I also have a Windows 2000 available,
>  but once more... It's NT5, so...
>
>  I keep pushing, it IS useful for the project. 
You mean it's useful for you.


>   Furthermore, how could we explain we implement Windows
> 2003 without having any Windows 2003 for our devs? 
Most reactos devs aren't kernel devs so that a null argument as we
implement the Windows 7 API set in usermode.
Secondly, anyone who states that we implement a 2k3 kernel is wrong.
Alex used to target 2k3 in the days of his kernel rewrites
but the fact is that most of our kernel is very much NT5.1 based (due
to the similarities) and in many cases totally different than any
of the NT kernels.


I'm not sure why you felt the need to be rude/aggressive, perhaps you
feel threatened in by my question which now appears to be
"Would anyone other than Pierre have any use for a (free) remotely
available copy of 2k3?"

If you really need it, you can probably make a good case to the
foundation for your own copy.
My point is, is it really worth having this online server just for
your use when it would be better served as an MSVC build slave which
would benefit everyone.

Ged

[Pierre Schweitzer]

>   For my information??
>  You need to start your sentences a little more politely 
Wasn't aware it was that impolite (cf:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/for-your-information-FYI.html).
So, s/For your information/If I may bring that point to you Sir.

>   You're talking about testing mappings via the
> FsRtl kernel API's,
>  which isn't important to an end user nor 99% of devs who work on
>  reactos.
>  It's a feature you choose to implement with regard to how the control
>  blocks are handled. 
Well... I let you explain to the users that ReactOS will stay at its current state as
important features have been implemented.
Furthermore, I heard some would like to have ReactOS handle NTFS. Without MCBs, it will be
hard. Unless we write our own hackish driver, ofc.

>   Why is that an "old" point? We've only
> recently started discussing it. 
Old point was refering to "a point that has been discussed in a previous mail and not
the one I was answering to.

>   You mean it's useful for you. 
Ok. Let's reimplement Windows 2003 without Windows 2003. And next time someone will
say "Oh! ReactOS is bad, they are stealing code from Microsoft, they are reverse
engineering code", we won't be able to answer: "You forget we have a Windows
2003 to perform test".
Some test-based development ~.
And I already often ask Sylvain for tests on Windows 2003 so...

>   Secondly, anyone who states that we implement a 2k3
> kernel is wrong.
>  Alex used to target 2k3 in the days of his kernel rewrites
>  but the fact is that most of our kernel is very much NT5.1 based (due
>  to the similarities) and in many cases totally different than any
>  of the NT kernels. 
As I wrote in my previous mail, we target Windows 2003. But for some obvious reasons (need
for quickly implemented & working code, for example) not all the parts are Windows
NT(5.2) designed. This may explain current driven rewrites...

>   I'm not sure why you felt the need to be
> rude/aggressive, perhaps you
>  feel threatened in by my question which now appears to be
>  "Would anyone other than Pierre have any use for a (free) remotely
>  available copy of 2k3?" 
Purpose wasn't to be rude or whatever. Just keep in mind we aren't all English
native-speakers and we may not have the same understanding of that language than yours.

>   If you really need it, you can probably make a good
> case to the
>  foundation for your own copy.
>  My point is, is it really worth having this online server just for
>  your use when it would be better served as an MSVC build slave which
>  would benefit everyone. 
Ok, then. Let's forget about that idea.
Ged said.

[Ged Murphy]

Pierre Schweitzer wrote:

>   Purpose wasn't to be rude or whatever. Just keep
> in
>  mind we aren't all English native-speakers and we may
>  not have the same understanding of that language than yours. 
My fault, I probably just read your mail in the wrong context after a long
day at work.

I do however think it's a good idea to approach the foundation with a
request for a copy of 2k3, if you think it'll help the project.
Prices on ebay seem fairly reasonable.

Ged.

[Colin Finck]

Ged Murphy wrote:
>   I do however think it's a good idea to approach
> the foundation with a
>  request for a copy of 2k3, if you think it'll help the project. 
The idea was to get a copy (or two) of Windows Home Server.

To make my long story in 
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2011-January/013809.html short: 
It is NT5.2-based and we comply with the EULA if we don't use RDP but 
mirror its console session over VNC.
The price for a single new copy of WHS would be ~90 EUR, which is why I 
even began thinking about getting two copies (development + 
buildslave/testslave).


- Colin

[Ged Murphy]

Yeah that does make sense. However my point was, if only Pierre is going to
use it why not just get him his own copy.
A local copy running in vmware is much more useful as you have a reliable
com connection for a kernel debugger.

I asked the question before, 'would anyone use a remote copy?' and only
Pierre seemed keen.

Ged.


-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Colin Finck
Sent: 19 January 2011 16:19
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the
project?

Ged Murphy wrote:
>   I do however think it's a good idea to approach
> the foundation with a
>  request for a copy of 2k3, if you think it'll help the project. 
The idea was to get a copy (or two) of Windows Home Server.

To make my long story in 
http://www.reactos.org/pipermail/ros-dev/2011-January/013809.html short: 
It is NT5.2-based and we comply with the EULA if we don't use RDP but 
mirror its console session over VNC.
The price for a single new copy of WHS would be ~90 EUR, which is why I 
even began thinking about getting two copies (development + 
buildslave/testslave).


- Colin

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Pierre Schweitzer]

>   Yeah that does make sense. However my point was, if
> only Pierre is going to
>  use it why not just get him his own copy. 
True point. I actually thought I am not the only to practise test-based dev. But looking
at the (lack of) comments, it seems I am. Taking that into account, it is not up to me to
decide.

Regards,
Pierre

[Timo Kreuzer]

Am 19.01.2011 18:04, schrieb Pierre Schweitzer:
> >   Yeah that does
> > make sense. However my point was, if only Pierre is going to
> >  use it why not just get him his own copy. 
>  True point. I actually thought I am not
> the only to practise test-based dev. But looking at the (lack of) comments, it seems I am.
> Taking that into account, it is not up to me to decide. 
I think you are making the wrong conclusions. My point on this issue is 
pretty much like Geds, nothing to add.
And speaking of test based development: Of course I am making tests, but 
Windows XP and Windows 7 are just fine for that, unless you test some 
very specific kernel stuff.

[Aleksey Bragin]

On Jan 19, 2011, at 9:15 PM, Timo Kreuzer wrote:

>   Am 19.01.2011 18:04, schrieb Pierre Schweitzer:
> > >   Yeah that
> > > does make sense. However my point was, if only Pierre  
> > >  is going to
> > >  use it why not just get him his own copy. 
> >  True point. I actually thought I am not
> > the only to practise test- 
> >  based dev. But looking at the (lack of) comments, it seems I am.  
> >  Taking that into account, it is not up to me to decide. 
>  I think you are making the wrong conclusions. My point on this  
>  issue is pretty much like Geds, nothing to add.
>  And speaking of test based development: Of course I am making  
>  tests, but Windows XP and Windows 7 are just fine for that, unless  
>  you test some very specific kernel stuff. 
That's because vast majority of people involved in ReactOS project  
*at least* dualboots with a Windows installation.  And for any  
Windows driver developer this is obviously a must, since ReactOS is  
quite far from being the leading development environment :)

It would be handy to have a copy of Windows 2003 for leasing, if  
that's possible. However, installing it at a remotely-accessible  
location is nearly useless (unless you really want to RDP into a yet  
another Windows, which has VMWare inside of it, plus a WinDbg, and  
you want to develop/test drivers this way).


My 5 kopeyek.
WBR,
Aleksey.

[Johannes Anderwald]

> >   Yeah that does
> > make sense. However my point was, if only Pierre is going to
> >  use it why not just get him his own copy. 
>  
>  True point. I actually thought I am not the only to practise test-based dev. But looking
> at the (lack of) comments, it seems I am. Taking that into account, it is not up to me to
> decide. 
As you may have noticed from my commits, the core sound stack is more or less compatible
(ks.sys not yet, portcls.sys is) with Windows NT. So your argument does _not_ hold. 
Besides that, I do support the approach of getting Win2k3 Server license, though I'm
not aware who will really use it for developing.

regards,
Johannes

[Ged Murphy]

This isn't legal.
You can't take a single user licence and opening it up to the public.

Ged.


-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Colin Finck
Sent: 14 January 2011 15:46
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the project?

Hi everybody,

I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows Server 
2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.

It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over 
RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing 
work on our actual target platform. Considering that some developers 
even use a non-Windows platform for development work, it might simplify 
their work as well.

We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave, 
Testslave, whatever), but at least native building could be done by any 
Windows version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP Pro 
license myself (German though).

As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear 
your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody 
knows a cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even donate 
one (e.g. unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused license after 
getting Server 2008, etc.)
English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this 
would only be a last resort :-)

Cheers,

Colin


P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM 
available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just let 
me know and I could set it up.

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Zachary Gorden]

Each seat comes with a number of builtin licenses.  There is a slightly
different set of rules with respect to terminal services, but adhering to
those and achieving what Colin wants to provide is not impossible or even
difficult.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>   This isn't legal.
>  You can't take a single user licence and opening it up to the public.
>
>  Ged.
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>  Behalf Of Colin Finck
>  Sent: 14 January 2011 15:46
>  To: ReactOS Development List
>  Subject: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the project?
>
>  Hi everybody,
>
>  I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows Server
>  2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.
>
>  It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over
>  RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing
>  work on our actual target platform. Considering that some developers
>  even use a non-Windows platform for development work, it might simplify
>  their work as well.
>
>  We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave,
>  Testslave, whatever), but at least native building could be done by any
>  Windows version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP Pro
>  license myself (German though).
>
>  As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear
>  your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody
>  knows a cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even donate
>  one (e.g. unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused license after
>  getting Server 2008, etc.)
>  English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this
>  would only be a last resort :-)
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Colin
>
>
>  P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM
>  available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just let
>  me know and I could set it up.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Ged Murphy]

My understanding is that each server allows n number of clients to connect
to it or n number of TS sessions, depending on the licence you hold.

It doesn't allow more than one person to use the actual host machine for
development purposes.

 

Ged.

 

 

From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Zachary Gorden
Sent: 14 January 2011 17:26
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the
project?

 

Each seat comes with a number of builtin licenses.  There is a slightly
different set of rules with respect to terminal services, but adhering to
those and achieving what Colin wants to provide is not impossible or even
difficult.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

This isn't legal.
You can't take a single user licence and opening it up to the public.

Ged.



-----Original Message-----
From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Colin Finck
Sent: 14 January 2011 15:46
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the project?

Hi everybody,

I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows Server
2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.

It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over
RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing
work on our actual target platform. Considering that some developers
even use a non-Windows platform for development work, it might simplify
their work as well.

We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave,
Testslave, whatever), but at least native building could be done by any
Windows version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP Pro
license myself (German though).

As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear
your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody
knows a cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even donate
one (e.g. unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused license after
getting Server 2008, etc.)
English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this
would only be a last resort :-)

Cheers,

Colin


P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM
available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just let
me know and I could set it up.

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev


_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Zachary Gorden]

Reading over the license terms for 2008 and R2 at least, we would need a
separate license for each developer that we want to allow access to remote
desktop to the server.  There is not any limitations listed with respect to
how many concurrent connections are permissible, though I think that
limitation, if it exists, is dependent on which version of Server one gets.
 There also does not appear to be any rules about not allowing other usages
if we use a server for TS functionality.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>   My understanding is that each server allows n number
> of clients to connect
>  to it or n number of TS sessions, depending on the licence you hold.
>
>  It doesn’t allow more than one person to use the actual host machine for
>  development purposes.
>
>
>
>  Ged.
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] *On
>  Behalf Of *Zachary Gorden
>  *Sent:* 14 January 2011 17:26
>  *To:* ReactOS Development List
>  *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the
>  project?
>
>
>
>  Each seat comes with a number of builtin licenses.  There is a slightly
>  different set of rules with respect to terminal services, but adhering to
>  those and achieving what Colin wants to provide is not impossible or even
>  difficult.
>
>  On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  This isn't legal.
>  You can't take a single user licence and opening it up to the public.
>
>  Ged.
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>  Behalf Of Colin Finck
>  Sent: 14 January 2011 15:46
>  To: ReactOS Development List
>  Subject: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the project?
>
>  Hi everybody,
>
>  I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows Server
>  2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.
>
>  It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over
>  RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing
>  work on our actual target platform. Considering that some developers
>  even use a non-Windows platform for development work, it might simplify
>  their work as well.
>
>  We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave,
>  Testslave, whatever), but at least native building could be done by any
>  Windows version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP Pro
>  license myself (German though).
>
>  As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear
>  your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody
>  knows a cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even donate
>  one (e.g. unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused license after
>  getting Server 2008, etc.)
>  English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this
>  would only be a last resort :-)
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Colin
>
>
>  P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM
>  available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just let
>  me know and I could set it up.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Colin Finck]

Ged Murphy wrote:
>   It doesn’t allow more than one person to use the
> actual host machine for
>  development purposes. 
The restrictions are indeed harder than I thought, but two concurrent 
administrative connections using any accounts are possible (see 
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/814590/en-us). This doesn't even require 
any CALs.
I've just verified this in a Windows Server 2008 evaluation VM I had 
lying around.

Additional concurrent connections require a single User CAL _plus_ a 
single Terminal Server User CAL for each connection. These need to be 
registered in two license managers and will be bound to users upon 
connecting. Don't know how easy it is to unbind them again, but it's 
certainly complicated considering that Terminal Server CALs require 
personal registration at Microsoft. Not very user-friendly for our usage 
scenario in an Open-Source project ;-)
Finally, these additional connections would be non-administrative, so 
likely unusable if we want to test drivers. Would certainly be easier to 
just buy another Windows Server license if the two included concurrent 
connections don't suffice.

Cheers,

Colin

[Adam]

Using an OEM license on a computer that the software has not originally  
been distributed with is not legal (confirmed with a call to MS when I was  
trying to sort out licensing/activation queries of my own)

Perhaps you can try Windows Server 200X Web Edition as that is the  
cheapest. However, still can only be installed on one server per license.

And why the hell would you want a 32-BIT edition of Windows Server 2003?  
Why not Windows Server 2008 x64 or Itanium versions?

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 03:27:48 +1100, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>   This isn't legal.
>  You can't take a single user licence and opening it up to the public.
>
>  Ged.
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>  Behalf Of Colin Finck
>  Sent: 14 January 2011 15:46
>  To: ReactOS Development List
>  Subject: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the project?
>
>  Hi everybody,
>
>  I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows Server
>  2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.
>
>  It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over
>  RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing
>  work on our actual target platform. Considering that some developers
>  even use a non-Windows platform for development work, it might simplify
>  their work as well.
>
>  We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave,
>  Testslave, whatever), but at least native building could be done by any
>  Windows version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP Pro
>  license myself (German though).
>
>  As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear
>  your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody
>  knows a cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even donate
>  one (e.g. unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused license after
>  getting Server 2008, etc.)
>  English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this
>  would only be a last resort :-)
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Colin
>
>
>  P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM
>  available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just let
>  me know and I could set it up.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Zachary Gorden]

Though I originally asked a similar question, I realized the answer
afterward, mainly that the kernel target remains NT5.2, which is Server
2k3.  And while I would not object to 2008/R2, why would we get an Itanium
version?  An Itanium machine would probably cost us as much if not more than
the licenses and there is little value having one unless we were planning an
Itanium port.

On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Adam <geekdundee(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>   Using an OEM license on a computer that the software
> has not originally
>  been distributed with is not legal (confirmed with a call to MS when I was
>  trying to sort out licensing/activation queries of my own)
>
>  Perhaps you can try Windows Server 200X Web Edition as that is the
>  cheapest. However, still can only be installed on one server per license.
>
>  And why the hell would you want a 32-BIT edition of Windows Server 2003?
>  Why not Windows Server 2008 x64 or Itanium versions?
>
>
>  On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 03:27:48 +1100, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com>
>  wrote:
>
>   This isn't legal.
> >   You can't take a single user licence and
> > opening it up to the public.
> >
> >  Ged.
> >
> >
> >  -----Original Message-----
> >  From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >  Behalf Of Colin Finck
> >  Sent: 14 January 2011 15:46
> >  To: ReactOS Development List
> >  Subject: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the project?
> >
> >  Hi everybody,
> >
> >  I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows Server
> >  2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.
> >
> >  It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over
> >  RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing
> >  work on our actual target platform. Considering that some developers
> >  even use a non-Windows platform for development work, it might simplify
> >  their work as well.
> >
> >  We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave,
> >  Testslave, whatever), but at least native building could be done by any
> >  Windows version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP Pro
> >  license myself (German though).
> >
> >  As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear
> >  your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody
> >  knows a cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even donate
> >  one (e.g. unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused license after
> >  getting Server 2008, etc.)
> >  English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this
> >  would only be a last resort :-)
> >
> >  Cheers,
> >
> >  Colin
> >
> >
> >  P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM
> >  available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just let
> >  me know and I could set it up.
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> >
> >  _______________________________________________
> >  Ros-dev mailing list
> >  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >  
>
>  --
>  Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>

[Adam]

I wasn't suggesting "get an Itanium version" - I was curious as to why you 

would want the 32-bit version rather than one which can run on a 64-bit  
platform.

Of course Itanium is extra expensive. And pretty much rare these days.

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:08:44 +1100, Zachary Gorden  
<drakekaizer666(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>   Though I originally asked a similar question, I
> realized the answer
>  afterward, mainly that the kernel target remains NT5.2, which is Server
>  2k3.  And while I would not object to 2008/R2, why would we get an  
>  Itanium
>  version?  An Itanium machine would probably cost us as much if not more  
>  than
>  the licenses and there is little value having one unless we were  
>  planning an
>  Itanium port.
>
>  On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Adam <geekdundee(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Using an OEM license on a computer that the software has not originally
> > been distributed with is not legal (confirmed with a call to MS when I  
> > was
> > trying to sort out licensing/activation queries of my own)
> >
> > Perhaps you can try Windows Server 200X Web Edition as that is the
> > cheapest. However, still can only be installed on one server per  
> > license.
> >
> > And why the hell would you want a 32-BIT edition of Windows Server 2003?
> > Why not Windows Server 2008 x64 or Itanium versions?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 03:27:48 +1100, Ged Murphy <gedmurphy(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >  This isn't legal.
> >> You can't take a single user licence and opening it up to the public.
> >>
> >> Ged.
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ros-dev-bounces(a)reactos.org [mailto:[e-mail]]  
> >> On
> >> Behalf Of Colin Finck
> >> Sent: 14 January 2011 15:46
> >> To: ReactOS Development List
> >> Subject: [ros-dev] Getting a Windows Server 2003 license for the  
> >> project?
> >>
> >> Hi everybody,
> >>
> >> I've been thinking about getting a license of an English Windows Server
> >> 2003 Standard 32-Bit for the project.
> >>
> >> It could be installed on one of our servers and be made available over
> >> RDP. This would enable project members to do development and testing
> >> work on our actual target platform. Considering that some developers
> >> even use a non-Windows platform for development work, it might simplify
> >> their work as well.
> >>
> >> We may as well use the license for other purposes (Buildslave,
> >> Testslave, whatever), but at least native building could be done by any
> >> Windows version. And in this case, I might be able to donate an XP Pro
> >> license myself (German though).
> >>
> >> As I don't know about the needs of the other members, I'd like to hear
> >> your opinion about my idea. It would also be nice to hear if anybody
> >> knows a cheap (but legal!) way to get such a license or can even donate
> >> one (e.g. unused OEM license shipped with a server, unused license  
> >> after
> >> getting Server 2008, etc.)
> >> English Windows licenses are rare/expensive on German eBay, so this
> >> would only be a last resort :-)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Colin
> >>
> >>
> >> P.S.: If you have the opposite problem and actually need a Linux VM
> >> available over SSH/RDP (e.g. for testing build system changes), just  
> >> let
> >> me know and I could set it up.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ros-dev mailing list
> >> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Ros-dev mailing list
> >> Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > 

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Colin Finck]

Adam wrote:
>   Using an OEM license on a computer that the software
> has not originally
>  been distributed with is not legal  (confirmed with a call to MS [...] 
Of course, this is what every software vendor wants. But gladly, this 
decision is not just up to Microsoft, but the local jurisdictions. And 
at least in Germany, Microsoft has lost a case related to OEM software 
in court (see http://tinyurl.com/dfl6u). Later court cases also allowed 
unbundling single licenses of volume license contracts. See 
http://www.usedsoft.com/rechtslage/urteile.html for a list of German 
cases related to this.
The appropriate German law behind this decision seems to be a ratified 
EU law, so it should be legal to unbundle licenses in all EU states.


>   Perhaps you can try Windows Server 200X Web Edition as
> that is the
>  cheapest. 
Now that we only need the Remote Desktop for Administration and no extra 
Terminal Services, this might indeed be a cheap alternative. But as the 
Web Edition was only available in volume license contracts, it is quite 
rare on eBay and other platforms.

Additionally, I'm not sure about two things: Does its Remote Desktop for 
Administration also allow two concurrent RDP sessions like the other 
server editions? And are there any localized versions of it or just an 
English one with MUI packs? Latter one would be the best for us :-)


>   And why the hell would you want a 32-BIT edition of
> Windows Server 2003? 
Because this is still the main target. And as stated, we won't use the 
server for real serving purposes, but just for development and testing.


- Colin

[Adam]

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 21:19:52 +1100, Colin Finck <colin(a)reactos.org> wrote:

>   Adam wrote:
> >   Using an OEM license on a computer that the
> > software has not originally
> >  been distributed with is not legal  (confirmed with a call to MS [...] 
>  Of course, this is what every software vendor wants. But gladly, this  
>  decision is not just up to Microsoft, but the local jurisdictions. And  
>  at least in Germany, Microsoft has lost a case related to OEM software  
>  in court (see http://tinyurl.com/dfl6u). Later court cases also allowed  
>  unbundling single licenses of volume license contracts. See  
>  http://www.usedsoft.com/rechtslage/urteile.html for a list of German  
>  cases related to this.
>  The appropriate German law behind this decision seems to be a ratified  
>  EU law, so it should be legal to unbundle licenses in all EU states. 
Nice. :)

> >   Perhaps you
> > can try Windows Server 200X Web Edition as that is the
> >  cheapest. 
>  Now that we only need the Remote Desktop for Administration and no extra  
>  Terminal Services, this might indeed be a cheap alternative. But as the  
>  Web Edition was only available in volume license contracts, it is quite  
>  rare on eBay and other platforms. 
ah that explains why I am unable to find it anywhere for purchase. Of  
course you should be able to purchase Windows Server 2008 R2 standard with  
downgrade rights to Windows Server 2003 but I am under the impression  
Windows Server 2008 R2 only comes as x64 (or at least, it was going to) so  
you'd probably get 2003 x64 version.

>  
>  Additionally, I'm not sure about two things: Does its Remote Desktop for  
>  Administration also allow two concurrent RDP sessions like the other  
>  server editions? And are there any localized versions of it or just an  
>  English one with MUI packs? Latter one would be the best for us :-) 
Not 100% sure about Windows Server 2003, but Windows Server 2008 (at  
least, when I was playing with the 32-bit one as Windows Server "Longhorn"  
back in 2007) allows up to 2 sessions. That includes the console session.  
I recall that it also allows two RDP sessions, but then nobody can log  
into the console without forcing a termination of one of the sessions, and  
vice versa.

>  
>
> >   And why the hell would you want a 32-BIT edition
> > of Windows Server 2003? 
>  Because this is still the main target. And as stated, we won't use the  
>  server for real serving purposes, but just for development and testing. 
ah that explains it.

>  
>
>  - Colin
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Ros-dev mailing list
>  Ros-dev(a)reactos.org
>  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev 

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Colin Finck]

Adam <geekdundee(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>   I recall that it also allows two RDP sessions, but
> then
>  nobody can log into the console without forcing a termination of one
>  of the sessions, and vice versa. 
I've played around with Windows Home Server and its stripped down 
version of Windows Server 2003 in the meantime. It allows two RDP 
sessions _plus_ the console session. I suspect this applies to all 
Windows Server 2003 editions which don't use additional Terminal Services.

Nevertheless, its EULA makes Home Server and the Web Edition de-facto 
unusable for our purpose over RDP. The Home Server license terms state: 
"You may only use Terminal Services functionality to the extent required 
to manage the server software in Remote Administration Mode" (2d).
While the Web Edition doesn't add any RDP-related limits, it puts a 
general limit on the usage scenarios: "The Server Software may be used 
solely for deployment of Web pages, Web sites, Web applications, Web 
services, and POP3 mail serving. [...] Any other usage of the Server 
Software is not permitted" (2c)

The Standard and Enterprise editions permit the usage of the included 
two RDP sessions only for administrative purposes as well (3a). If we 
want to go for RDP, we would still need one of these editions, plus a 
Windows CAL and a Terminal Services CAL for each user that ever accesses 
the server. It might be doable, but I consider it way too expensive and 
hardly manageable for us.

Gladly, none of the EULAs puts limits on the console session. While the 
Home Server EULA doesn't even mention it, the Standard/Enterprise EULA 
explicitly states "You do not need a TS CAL when attaching to or 
mirroring the single Console Session" (3g). As both products are related 
in their general functionality and Terminal Services in Windows Server 
2003 Standard/Enterprise explicitly exclude the console session, I 
believe that this is also true for Home Server.

This would make it possible for us to install a Home Server onto a 
virtual machine, disabling all RDP features and mirroring its console 
session over VNC. Using this VNC connection could happen from a Linux VM 
on the same server, which itself would be accessed over RDP (using Xrdp).
Of course, this makes simultaneous connections to the Home Server 
impossible, but I doubt that this will cause many conflicts. As a new 
Windows Home Server license is available for just about 90 EUR, we could 
also just get another one in case of conflicts.
Simultaneous accesses to the same server instance might be a bad idea 
anyway if some testing work requires an isolated environment and could 
cause blue screens, restarts, etc.

While this of course is a hack around the EULA, I believe that we're 
good to go with this method as we don't do anything wrong legally.
Please tell me what you think about this method and if we should spend 
the 90 EUR for a Home Server license (or even buy more).


- Colin