>> On Wed, 23 May 2007 09:27:21 +0200, Dirk Kastens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I never understood why a backup software is being licensed based on > the number or type of the processors. This would be ok for a > database or mathematical software but not for a backup software. When they first moved off the "Server license expensive, client license cheap" model, the muttering was a harmonization of the TSM product with the rest of the Tivoli price scheme. It appears that the flattening of the price scheme was trying to decrease the amout of "front-end" costs, witness the Express product, etc. I think this is a disservice both to the existing clue base and the product as a whole. TSM is a superb product but not a trivial one to run well. The flattened price scheme encourages little shops to get into it, badly. I'm biased on this, running a medium-to-large TSM server for UF campus and environs, but there are a couple of places on and near campus who've decided to go roll their own. I try to help them, but there's a limit to what I can do. So people climb into the product for cheap, get bit, get mad, go do something else. In any case, the current license scheme is impossible to get right, expensive to estimate, and not representative of the value received. There's no reason to base the licensing on something the client can't estimate, and good reason to base it on something the server can calculate. I say let IBM do the legwork. I wonder how much IBM is paying KPMG to find out "This license scheme is a burden"? They coulda had it here for free. - Allen S. Rout
