Oracle on Windows Server Vs Xp-Pro

[LJ]

Newton Bolton wrote: Does anyone know if using the Windows Server OS instead of XP-Pro will offer any performance advantages? I don't plan to use ANY Microsoft products such as IIS or Exchange. This will be a pure Oracle database server. Thanks in advance- Newt
Howard J. Rogers wrote:>
You'll know already, of course, that workstation-class MS operating systems only permit 10 concurrent users to access the machine from other workstations. Your anticipated load of 8 is already perilously close to that, and the Server O/S might be justified on those grounds alone -plenty more growth room. Besides which, you need to be careful that workstations don't do unintended 'silent' cross-connections, which steal from your number of permitted connections.
I didn't know of this limit. Is this a licensing limit, performance
limit or a limitation enforced by the MS software? I have departments
with 14 Oracle "named users" and they all connect to the server every
day, even though only 2-4 may be using the application. The nature of
this department is such that they interact with the database only a few
times every hour, so the effective load on the database is negligable.
However, I have never had a problem with people connecting to the
'server' (Win-NT 4.0 workstation)
On the other hand, the choice of O/S can make a significant difference to performance: a 'rebuild all my indexes' script on one of my servers running White Box Linux completes in 38 minutes. When the SAME machine was last installed with Windows 2003, the same script completed in 52.5 minutes. I make that a 28% speed improvement by NOT spending any money!
I agree 100% about Linux. I use Linux and MySQL both. I have tried
installing Oracle on linux, but not for several years. The Oracle
application (on the server) needs to run Reports 6I to create PDF
reports for emailing, so that rules out Linux for now. I have used
PHP and MySql to generate some PDF reports, and that works well, except
that creating the report is more work. At the risk of veering too far
off-topic, I will add that once you have written a report in a 3GL
language, it is easier to reuse parts of it than it is with Oracle
Reports. I have always found it frustrating that the Oracle product
doesn't allow you to copy (or reference) parts of one report into other
reports. (Maybe versions newer than 6I have this feature.)
It might perhaps be a bit much to take it all on at once, and maybe it's a definite no-no for you, but I feel these days that everyone ought to at least be looking at Linux, for professional skills reasons as well as performance and cost. You'll find White Box is free, runs well on a Workstation-class PC, and will handle 8 or more users without batting an eyelid.
And, Linux and Open source competition is the only thing keeping Oracle
and Microsoft from ramping up prices exponentially. I think that open
source products are improving at a much faster rate than either MS or
Oracle products.
--Newt

[Howard J. Rogers]

Newton Bolton wrote: Newton Bolton wrote: Does anyone know if using the Windows Server OS instead of XP-Pro will offer any performance advantages? I don't plan to use ANY Microsoft products such as IIS or Exchange. This will be a pure Oracle database server. Thanks in advance- Newt Howard J. Rogers wrote:> You'll know already, of course, that workstation-class MS operating systems only permit 10 concurrent users to access the machine from other workstations. Your anticipated load of 8 is already perilously close to that, and the Server O/S might be justified on those grounds alone -plenty more growth room. Besides which, you need to be careful that workstations don't do unintended 'silent' cross-connections, which steal from your number of permitted connections. I didn't know of this limit. Is this a licensing limit, performance limit or a limitation enforced by the MS software? I have departments with 14 Oracle "named users" and they all connect to the server every day, even though only 2-4 may be using the application. The nature of this department is such that they interact with the database only a few times every hour, so the effective load on the database is negligable. However, I have never had a problem with people connecting to the 'server' (Win-NT 4.0 workstation)


It's an intrinsic software limit (that is, it's not something you can
license your way out of).

As a for-example, try:

www.ntcompatible.com/thread17769-1.html

It was the first one I spotted on Google. It talks a lot about Windows
2000, but there is also mention of NT and XP. And someone confuses
PC-to-PC connections with Internet Connections, but the general point is
clear enough, I hope.

[snip]
The Oracle application (on the server) needs to run Reports 6I to create PDF reports for emailing, so that rules out Linux for now.

I don't understand that comment.... are you saying that Reports 6i is
not available in a Linux version? Or that you can't produce PDFs on Linux?

The latter I know not to be the case. And the former... well, a quick
trip to technet.oracle.com's download page reveals a Reports 6i Release
2 is available for SPARC Solaris, Windows NT/2000/XP ...and Linux.

Am I missing your point, then?

Regards
HJR

[Randy Harris]

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:41c99e08$0$4537$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
[snip] You'll know already, of course, that workstation-class MS operating systems only permit 10 concurrent users to access the machine from other workstations. Your anticipated load of 8 is already perilously close to that, and the Server O/S might be justified on those grounds alone -plenty more growth room. Besides which, you need to be careful that workstations don't do unintended 'silent' cross-connections, which steal from your number of permitted connections. I didn't know of this limit. Is this a licensing limit, performance limit or a limitation enforced by the MS software? I have departments with 14 Oracle "named users" and they all connect to the server every day, even though only 2-4 may be using the application. The nature of this department is such that they interact with the database only a few times every hour, so the effective load on the database is negligable. However, I have never had a problem with people connecting to the 'server' (Win-NT 4.0 workstation)

I was well aware of the PC to PC limit of 10 but was nearly certain that I
had been able to connect more than 10 Oracle clients to a system running W2K
(not server). Are you certain that the limitation would stop connections to
Oracle? Please pardon me if I appear to be argumentative. This is an
important matter for a project that I am engaged in currently, but am not
set up to test at the moment.
It's an intrinsic software limit (that is, it's not something you can license your way out of). As a for-example, try: www.ntcompatible.com/thread17769-1.html It was the first one I spotted on Google. It talks a lot about Windows 2000, but there is also mention of NT and XP. And someone confuses PC-to-PC connections with Internet Connections, but the general point is clear enough, I hope. [snip] The Oracle application (on the server) needs to run Reports 6I to create PDF reports for emailing, so that rules out Linux for now. I don't understand that comment.... are you saying that Reports 6i is not available in a Linux version? Or that you can't produce PDFs on Linux? The latter I know not to be the case. And the former... well, a quick trip to technet.oracle.com's download page reveals a Reports 6i Release 2 is available for SPARC Solaris, Windows NT/2000/XP ...and Linux. Am I missing your point, then? Regards HJR

[Howard J. Rogers]

Randy Harris wrote: "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message news:41c99e08$0$4537$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... [snip]>You'll know already, of course, that workstation-class MS operating>systems only permit 10 concurrent users to access the machine from>other workstations. Your anticipated load of 8 is already perilously>close to that, and the Server O/S might be justified on those grounds>alone -plenty more growth room. Besides which, you need to be careful>that workstations don't do unintended 'silent' cross-connections,>which steal from your number of permitted connections.I didn't know of this limit. Is this a licensing limit, performancelimit or a limitation enforced by the MS software? I have departmentswith 14 Oracle "named users" and they all connect to the server everyday, even though only 2-4 may be using the application. The nature ofthis department is such that they interact with the database only a fewtimes every hour, so the effective load on the database is negligable.However, I have never had a problem with people connecting to the'server' (Win-NT 4.0 workstation) I was well aware of the PC to PC limit of 10 but was nearly certain that I had been able to connect more than 10 Oracle clients to a system running W2K (not server). Are you certain that the limitation would stop connections to Oracle? Please pardon me if I appear to be argumentative. This is an important matter for a project that I am engaged in currently, but am not set up to test at the moment.

Just to be absolutely clear on what I'm talking about, at least:

You cannot have more than 10 *simultaneous* connections from other PCs
to a non-Server version of Windows. And a "connection" counts as anyone
making an in-bound request via a network interface to a PC for whatever
reason. So yes, Oracle would be clobbered by the limit.

But I was not drawing the distinction between whether more than 10 is
technically do-able, or whether it is legally permitted, and perhaps I
should have done so.

To sort the issue out, I think you might first want to read

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314882&Product=winxp

[watch for wrapping there]

....and in particular this bit:

"For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers that
are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is ten. This
limit includes all transports and resource sharing protocols combined.
For Windows XP Home Edition, the maximum number of other computers that
are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is five. This
limit is the number of simultaneous sessions from other computers the
system is permitted to host."

So, 10 is the limit for XP Pro, and that explicitly covers ALL incoming
connections -so Oracle is indeed going to be affected. But whether
that's a technical or "merely" a licensing limit is irrelevant, I would
have said (assuming you want to stay legal). The last sentence of that
article makes it actually pretty clear that the limit of 10 is not
technically applied to TCP/IP connections, but that it's a licensing issue.

Next, read the EULA (eula.txt in \WINDOWS\system32):

* Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Product on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
access (including connection sharing and telephony
services). The ten connection maximum includes any
indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
software or hardware which pools or aggregates
connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the
NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
features described below, you may not use the Product
to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
the Device has a separate license for the Product.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but that certainly reads as though allowing *anyone
at all* to connect from a remote PC to an XP Pro Workstation for the
purposes of accessing an Oracle database is outside the scope of
licensed activity!! A connection to an Oracle database certainly sounds
to me like it would count as a "Device using, accessing, displaying or
running other executable software residing on your Workstation".

So, single-user Oracle only according to that. Which I must say came as
a bit of a shock, even to me.

So am I "certain that the limitation would stop connections to Oracle"?
Absolutely 1000%, provided only that you care about being legal. :-)
What one manages to get away with, and what one can legally achieve are,
regrettably, often two completely different things!

For an even more certain answer, however, I think you should get in
contact with Microsoft directly. I did once on a similar issue
concerning whether a Windows installation into a virtual PC "counted" as
a licensed installation (and hence required a new purchase). They were
very friendly, very polite, and very firm that it did. They will be
equally categorical about this matter, one way or another, if you ask
them (and letting us know their response would certainly interest others
here, I think).

Regards
HJR

[Randy Harris]

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:41c9eeb7$0$1124$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... Randy Harris wrote: "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message news:41c99e08$0$4537$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... [snip]>>You'll know already, of course, that workstation-class MS operating>>systems only permit 10 concurrent users to access the machine from>>other workstations. Your anticipated load of 8 is already perilously>>close to that, and the Server O/S might be justified on those grounds>>alone -plenty more growth room. Besides which, you need to be careful>>that workstations don't do unintended 'silent' cross-connections,>>which steal from your number of permitted connections.>>I didn't know of this limit. Is this a licensing limit, performance>limit or a limitation enforced by the MS software? I have departments>with 14 Oracle "named users" and they all connect to the server every>day, even though only 2-4 may be using the application. The nature of>this department is such that they interact with the database only a few>times every hour, so the effective load on the database is negligable.>However, I have never had a problem with people connecting to the>'server' (Win-NT 4.0 workstation) I was well aware of the PC to PC limit of 10 but was nearly certain that
I had been able to connect more than 10 Oracle clients to a system running
W2K (not server). Are you certain that the limitation would stop
connections to Oracle? Please pardon me if I appear to be argumentative. This is an important matter for a project that I am engaged in currently, but am
not set up to test at the moment. Just to be absolutely clear on what I'm talking about, at least: You cannot have more than 10 *simultaneous* connections from other PCs to a non-Server version of Windows. And a "connection" counts as anyone making an in-bound request via a network interface to a PC for whatever reason. So yes, Oracle would be clobbered by the limit. But I was not drawing the distinction between whether more than 10 is technically do-able, or whether it is legally permitted, and perhaps I should have done so. To sort the issue out, I think you might first want to read
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314882&Product=winxp [watch for wrapping there] ...and in particular this bit: "For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is ten. This limit includes all transports and resource sharing protocols combined. For Windows XP Home Edition, the maximum number of other computers that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is five. This limit is the number of simultaneous sessions from other computers the system is permitted to host." So, 10 is the limit for XP Pro, and that explicitly covers ALL incoming connections -so Oracle is indeed going to be affected. But whether that's a technical or "merely" a licensing limit is irrelevant, I would have said (assuming you want to stay legal). The last sentence of that article makes it actually pretty clear that the limit of 10 is not technically applied to TCP/IP connections, but that it's a licensing
issue. Next, read the EULA (eula.txt in \WINDOWS\system32): * Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product. Now, I'm no lawyer, but that certainly reads as though allowing *anyone at all* to connect from a remote PC to an XP Pro Workstation for the purposes of accessing an Oracle database is outside the scope of licensed activity!! A connection to an Oracle database certainly sounds to me like it would count as a "Device using, accessing, displaying or running other executable software residing on your Workstation". So, single-user Oracle only according to that. Which I must say came as a bit of a shock, even to me. So am I "certain that the limitation would stop connections to Oracle"? Absolutely 1000%, provided only that you care about being legal. :-) What one manages to get away with, and what one can legally achieve are, regrettably, often two completely different things! For an even more certain answer, however, I think you should get in contact with Microsoft directly. I did once on a similar issue concerning whether a Windows installation into a virtual PC "counted" as a licensed installation (and hence required a new purchase). They were very friendly, very polite, and very firm that it did. They will be equally categorical about this matter, one way or another, if you ask them (and letting us know their response would certainly interest others here, I think). Regards HJR

This is quite an eye-opener. Your assumption that I "care about being
legal" is, of course, absolutely the case. I find the wording in the EULA a
bit confusing, but there can be no uncertainty in the passage that you cite
from the web site. I've always been cautious about observing licensing
restrictions from Oracle, but have ignorantly violated those from Microsoft.

The timing here is uncanny. I now need to revise a management proposal that
I completed yesterday.

Thank you very much for the clarification,
Randy Harris

[LJ]

Howard J. Rogers wrote: Randy Harris wrote: "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr@dizwell.com> wrote in message news:41c99e08$0$4537$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au... [snip]>> You'll know already, of course, that workstation-class MS operating>> systems only permit 10 concurrent users to access the machine from>> other workstations. Your anticipated load of 8 is already perilously>> close to that, and the Server O/S might be justified on those grounds>> alone -plenty more growth room. Besides which, you need to be careful>> that workstations don't do unintended 'silent' cross-connections,>> which steal from your number of permitted connections.>>> I didn't know of this limit. Is this a licensing limit, performance> limit or a limitation enforced by the MS software? I have departments> with 14 Oracle "named users" and they all connect to the server every> day, even though only 2-4 may be using the application. The nature of> this department is such that they interact with the database only a few> times every hour, so the effective load on the database is negligable.> However, I have never had a problem with people connecting to the> 'server' (Win-NT 4.0 workstation) I was well aware of the PC to PC limit of 10 but was nearly certain that I had been able to connect more than 10 Oracle clients to a system running W2K (not server). Are you certain that the limitation would stop connections to Oracle? Please pardon me if I appear to be argumentative. This is an important matter for a project that I am engaged in currently, but am not set up to test at the moment. Just to be absolutely clear on what I'm talking about, at least: You cannot have more than 10 *simultaneous* connections from other PCs to a non-Server version of Windows. And a "connection" counts as anyone making an in-bound request via a network interface to a PC for whatever reason. So yes, Oracle would be clobbered by the limit. But I was not drawing the distinction between whether more than 10 is technically do-able, or whether it is legally permitted, and perhaps I should have done so. To sort the issue out, I think you might first want to read http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;314882&Product=winxp [watch for wrapping there] ...and in particular this bit: "For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is ten. This limit includes all transports and resource sharing protocols combined. For Windows XP Home Edition, the maximum number of other computers that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is five. This limit is the number of simultaneous sessions from other computers the system is permitted to host." So, 10 is the limit for XP Pro, and that explicitly covers ALL incoming connections -so Oracle is indeed going to be affected. But whether that's a technical or "merely" a licensing limit is irrelevant, I would have said (assuming you want to stay legal). The last sentence of that article makes it actually pretty clear that the limit of 10 is not technically applied to TCP/IP connections, but that it's a licensing issue. Next, read the EULA (eula.txt in \WINDOWS\system32): * Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.
If another Windows Workstation is running a legal copy of the same
version of Windows, ( "the Product"), then it DOES have a separate
license for "the Product", and it can connect legally to the
workstation. If that is not what this means, then what else would the
"unless" clause mean?

If they are trying to forbid using the workstation to serve an Oracle
Database to a few users, wouldn't they say so?

Also, what about SQL-Server? Is SQL-Server restricted on workstation
class machines?

It is curious that this clause is so general. What is a "Device"? Is a
bar-code scanner a "device"? It certainly connects to the PC and uses
its resources. What about a palm-pilot attached to the serial port? Or
a pen-based tablet, or a device that reads input from a labratory scale
or temperature sensor???
Now, I'm no lawyer, but that certainly reads as though allowing *anyone at all* to connect from a remote PC to an XP Pro Workstation for the purposes of accessing an Oracle database is outside the scope of licensed activity!! A connection to an Oracle database certainly sounds to me like it would count as a "Device using, accessing, displaying or running other executable software residing on your Workstation".


So, single-user Oracle only according to that. Which I must say came as a bit of a shock, even to me. So am I "certain that the limitation would stop connections to Oracle"? Absolutely 1000%, provided only that you care about being legal. :-) What one manages to get away with, and what one can legally achieve are, regrettably, often two completely different things! For an even more certain answer, however, I think you should get in contact with Microsoft directly.

I don't know that this is so certain. They will naturally give you the
answer that is most restrictive. Contracts are always subject to
interpretation. Each party to a contract has the right to make good
faith interpretations of the meaning of the language.

I did once on a similar issue concerning whether a Windows installation into a virtual PC "counted" as a licensed installation (and hence required a new purchase). They were very friendly, very polite, and very firm that it did. They will be equally categorical about this matter, one way or another, if you ask them (and letting us know their response would certainly interest others here, I think). Regards HJR

[LJ]

More Eula:
"You may permit a maximum of ten (10) ("Connection Maximum") computers
or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the
COMPUTER to utilize one or more of the following services of
the SOFTWARE: File services, Print services, Internet
Information services, and remote access (including connection
sharing and telephony services)." ... [..SNIP..] ... This ten
connection maximum does not apply to any other uses of the Product."

===========================

My interpretation of this is that Oracle database connections are NOT
limited by this clause at all, because it is not in the list of things
that ARE limited ( assuming you interpret "Remote Access" to mean MS
remote access virtual desktop software, which is the way I interpret it.

--Newt

[LJ]

Howard J. Rogers wrote:
application (on the server) needs to run Reports 6I to create PDF reports for emailing, so that rules out Linux for now. I don't understand that comment.... are you saying that Reports 6i is not available in a Linux version? Or that you can't produce PDFs on Linux? The latter I know not to be the case. And the former... well, a quick trip to technet.oracle.com's download page reveals a Reports 6i Release 2 is available for SPARC Solaris, Windows NT/2000/XP ...and Linux. Am I missing your point, then?
Could be my ignorance of course. It runs deep and wide! !
I wasn't aware Dev6I ran on linux. Does it require a separate
developer license, or can you develop on Linux under a Windows Dev6I
license?? If it requires a separate developer license, then it wipes
out all te savings of using Linux.

[Howard J. Rogers]

Newton Bolton wrote: More Eula: "You may permit a maximum of ten (10) ("Connection Maximum") computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the COMPUTER to utilize one or more of the following services of the SOFTWARE: File services, Print services, Internet Information services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services)." ... [..SNIP..] ... This ten connection maximum does not apply to any other uses of the Product." =========================== My interpretation of this is that Oracle database connections are NOT limited by this clause at all, because it is not in the list of things that ARE limited ( assuming you interpret "Remote Access" to mean MS remote access virtual desktop software, which is the way I interpret it. --Newt


I don't know what EULA you are quoting, and it would help to be
specific. Mine is from my current laptop XP Pro SP2 installation and
does not read as you have it above. Mine says, as I quoted earlier:

"You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic
devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services,
Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection
sharing and telephony services)."

Where you have "...to utilize one or more of the following services",
therefore, mine reads "utilize the services SOLELY for...". Mine is
quite explicit: if it's not File and Print services, IIS or Remote
Access, forget it: it's not permitted. Yours is indeed very
permissive... but then, as I say, I have no idea what EULA you're
quoting from.

But this now merely becomes idle speculation. I suggest you (or whoever
needs a definitive answer) either search Google (where my interpretation
has been supported in the past), or consult Microsoft, who are not
nearly as tricky/restrictive as you suggest in another post. Or consult
a lawyer.

Best practice, I would have thought, would be to take the most cautious
approach, rather than the most generous and permissive.

HJR

[Howard J. Rogers]

Newton Bolton wrote:
If another Windows Workstation is running a legal copy of the same version of Windows, ( "the Product"), then it DOES have a separate license for "the Product",

Yes. It has a license to do what the license permits it to do. And since
the license I quoted forbids other machines connecting to it unless for
the purposes of file and print services, Remote access or IIS, then
merely having purchased another copy of Windows doesn't give that other
copy the right to violate the terms of the original license!
It is curious that this clause is so general. What is a "Device"? Is a bar-code scanner a "device"? It certainly connects to the PC and uses its resources. What about a palm-pilot attached to the serial port? Or a pen-based tablet, or a device that reads input from a labratory scale or temperature sensor???

The definition is the EULA is quite explicit:

"You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic
devices (each a "Device")... to connect to the Workstation Computer to
utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services,
Internet Information Services, and remote access..."

So the question to ask is probably: does the device do file sharing,
printer sharing, IIS or remote access work. None of the devices you
describe, I think, with the possible exception of the Palm Pilot, do
those things. But let's not get into a legal debate for which neither of
us is qualified.
For an even more certain answer, however, I think you should get in contact with Microsoft directly. I don't know that this is so certain. They will naturally give you the answer that is most restrictive.

There's nothing "naturally" about it. I've generally found them to be
perfectly reasonable people.
Contracts are always subject to interpretation.

Yes, by courts at the end of the day. And courts are guided by what the
lawyers before them say. And Microsoft has just a tad more cash to brief
its lawyers than you have yours, I would imagine. So yeah: feel free to
"interpret" all you want, but the precautionary principle should
probably apply, because I suspect I know who would win any court-decided
interpretation!!
Each party to a contract has the right to make good faith interpretations of the meaning of the language.

Certainly, we are all free to make good faith interpretations. But
ultimately, contracts are legally determined. It's the court's
interpretation that we all must eventually bow to.

I don't want to keep this sort of thing going. EULAs are notoriously
obscure at the best of times, and neither what you nor I think
ultimately matters a damn when it comes to their actual determination.
The point I made to the OP was simply that the 10-PC limit is
well-known; that it *might* apply (and, OK, that *I* think it does, but
whatever), and that he should tread carefully as a result. And that's
all leaving aside the issue that it is really not a terribly sensible
way to go in the first place to run Oracle in a production environment
on a Workstation-class O/S.

More than that, I don't think it productive to go. So that's my
contributions to the thread over with. :-)

Regards
HJR

[Niall Litchfield]

Newton Bolton wrote: Howard J. Rogers wrote:
<snip> ...and in particular this bit: "For Windows XP Professional, the maximum number of other computers
that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is ten.
This limit includes all transports and resource sharing protocols
combined. For Windows XP Home Edition, the maximum number of other computers
that are permitted to simultaneously connect over the network is five.
This limit is the number of simultaneous sessions from other computers
the system is permitted to host."
<snip> Next, read the EULA (eula.txt in \WINDOWS\system32): * Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product. If another Windows Workstation is running a legal copy of the same version of Windows, ( "the Product"), then it DOES have a separate license for "the Product", and it can connect legally to the workstation. If that is not what this means, then what else would
the "unless" clause mean?

The clause is talking about running executables on a workstation. It
says that you are only permitted to do this under the terms of the
remote desktop and associated technologies license. In addition you are
only allowed to run the user interface for windows workstation from
another box if you have a windows licence for that second box (so no
remote control of windows machines from linux boxes by the look of it).
The english meaning of the above is in fact plain. You are not allowed
to use the workstation product as a server, moreover the number of
remote control and sharing type apps at any one time is limited to 5 or
10. The legal meaning would of course require a lawyer.
If they are trying to forbid using the workstation to serve an Oracle
Database to a few users, wouldn't they say so?

I believe that they have. On the other hand as you have to pay at least
$745 for the Oracle software (based on the 5 user minimum for std
edition 1) paying the $500 or so that windows server cost last time I
looked doesn't seem entirely onerous.
Also, what about SQL-Server? Is SQL-Server restricted on workstation
class machines?

In a word yes. Only the developer edition will even install on
Microsoft's workstation OS.

It is curious that this clause is so general. What is a "Device"?
Is a bar-code scanner a "device"? It certainly connects to the PC and
uses its resources. What about a palm-pilot attached to the serial port?
Or a pen-based tablet, or a device that reads input from a labratory
scale or temperature sensor???

same thing applies to a lot of recent licenses, especially for server
products when you don't know *how* someone is using your internet
accessible service.
So, single-user Oracle only according to that. Which I must say
came as a bit of a shock, even to me.

doesn't surprise me at all, especially given that MSSQL is limited in
the same way.
So am I "certain that the limitation would stop connections to
Oracle"? Absolutely 1000%, provided only that you care about being legal.
:-) What one manages to get away with, and what one can legally achieve
are, regrettably, often two completely different things! For an even more certain answer, however, I think you should get in
contact with Microsoft directly. I don't know that this is so certain. They will naturally give you
the answer that is most restrictive. Contracts are always subject to interpretation. Each party to a contract has the right to make good
faith interpretations of the meaning of the language.

Up to a point. On the other hand, as Howard as ably demonstrated these
restrictions are widely available and discussed in the public domain,
given this it would be hard to argue 'good faith' in court.

Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com

[Frank van Bortel]

Howard J. Rogers wrote:
[snip!] [...] computers or other electronic devices (each
a "Device") [...]
[...] Except [some MS products], you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor [more ...], unless the Device has a separate license for the Product. Now, I'm no lawyer, but that certainly reads as though allowing *anyone at all* to connect from a remote PC to an XP Pro Workstation for the purposes of accessing an Oracle database is outside the scope of licensed activity!! A connection to an Oracle database certainly sounds to me like it would count as a "Device using, accessing, displaying or running other executable software residing on your Workstation".

That would not even allow me to use the 6 USB connections, and
4 Firewire, and then connect a (non-USB) keyboard...

Surely that would not hold in any court. MS wish they could,
surely, but it sounds to me like "illegally restrictive".
But then, I'm not a lawyer, either :)

Merry XMas, and a happy 2005!
Frank van Bortel

[Howard J. Rogers]

Frank van Bortel wrote: Howard J. Rogers wrote: [snip!] [...] computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") [...] [...] Except [some MS products], you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor [more ...], unless the Device has a separate license for the Product. Now, I'm no lawyer, but that certainly reads as though allowing *anyone at all* to connect from a remote PC to an XP Pro Workstation for the purposes of accessing an Oracle database is outside the scope of licensed activity!! A connection to an Oracle database certainly sounds to me like it would count as a "Device using, accessing, displaying or running other executable software residing on your Workstation". That would not even allow me to use the 6 USB connections, and 4 Firewire, and then connect a (non-USB) keyboard...

Frank -that's what was asked about the barcode scanner, I think. Those
are 'peripherals', not 'Devices'. Devices are defined in the EULA I
originally quoted as something which makes use of file and print sharing
services, IIS and Remote Access. Your keyboard, USB tea cosy and
Firewire-powered undergarment warmer would not count!! (Though a
Firewire-powered undergarment is probably illegal for other reasons).
Surely that would not hold in any court. MS wish they could, surely, but it sounds to me like "illegally restrictive". But then, I'm not a lawyer, either :)

If indeed it had the meaning you surmise, then it would obviously be a
complete no-no. But is it likely Microsoft would go to the trouble of
drafting such an indefensible license agreement? (Rhetorical
question!!). On the other hand, if we distinguish between peripherals
which are necessary to the function of the device, or which enhance the
function of the device; and other *devices* themselves seeking to attach
to the device for some mere application purpose, then it's not that
restrictive.

You have to go also, I think, by 'industry practice' -and it's well
known in the industry, generally, that Workstations aren't servers, but
that they have a plethora of Firewire and USB ports for a reason.

I was afraid this would happen... I declare the end of my participation
in the thread, but I can't resist a bit of Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company legal banter....

It'll be Donaghue and Stevenson with the snail in the ginger beer bottle
next...
Merry XMas, and a happy 2005! Frank van Bortel

You too.
Regards
HJR

[LJ]

Howard J. Rogers wrote: Newton Bolton wrote: More Eula: "You may permit a maximum of ten (10) ("Connection Maximum") computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the COMPUTER to utilize one or more of the following services of the SOFTWARE: File services, Print services, Internet Information services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services)." ... [..SNIP..] ... This ten connection maximum does not apply to any other uses of the Product." =========================== My interpretation of this is that Oracle database connections are NOT limited by this clause at all, because it is not in the list of things that ARE limited ( assuming you interpret "Remote Access" to mean MS remote access virtual desktop software, which is the way I interpret it. --Newt I don't know what EULA you are quoting, and it would help to be specific. Mine is from my current laptop XP Pro SP2 installation and does not read as you have it above. Mine says, as I quoted earlier:


I am quoting from c:\windows\system32\eula.txt 41KB file dated
8/21/2002.

There are 8 other smaller eula.txt files on my laptop, all of which seem
to be "supplemental eulas". My system is an IBM Thinkpad T40, 9 months
old, running XP-Pro, and includes the SP2 update. Maybe the Eula terms
are randomly generated??

--NB

[Malcolm Dew-Jones]

Newton Bolton (nospam@nospam.com) wrote:
: Howard J. Rogers wrote:
: > Newton Bolton wrote:
: >
: >> More Eula:
: >> "You may permit a maximum of ten (10) ("Connection Maximum")
: >> computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the
: >> COMPUTER to utilize one or more of the following services of
: >> the SOFTWARE: File services, Print services, Internet
: >> Information services, and remote access (including connection
: >> sharing and telephony services)." ... [..SNIP..] ... This ten
: >> connection maximum does not apply to any other uses of the Product."
: >>
: >> ===========================
: >>
: >> My interpretation of this is that Oracle database connections are NOT
: >> limited by this clause at all, because it is not in the list of things
: >> that ARE limited ( assuming you interpret "Remote Access" to mean MS
: >> remote access virtual desktop software, which is the way I interpret it.
: >>
: >> --Newt
: >
: >
: >
: > I don't know what EULA you are quoting, and it would help to be
: > specific. Mine is from my current laptop XP Pro SP2 installation and
: > does not read as you have it above. Mine says, as I quoted earlier:
: >


: I am quoting from c:\windows\system32\eula.txt 41KB file dated
: 8/21/2002.

: There are 8 other smaller eula.txt files on my laptop, all of which seem
: to be "supplemental eulas". My system is an IBM Thinkpad T40, 9 months
: old, running XP-Pro, and includes the SP2 update. Maybe the Eula terms
: are randomly generated??

And presumably none of them apply at all unless the seller brought them to
your attention and you were reasonably able to read and agree to them
before you purchased the software.

In virtually every other situation where you were agreeing to something of
any substantial nature then you would be required to sign or initial
something to prove you were aware of it, even for things that cost a lot
less than the license to use XP (and etc.).



--

This space not for rent.

[Frank van Bortel]

Howard J. Rogers wrote: Frank van Bortel wrote: Howard J. Rogers wrote: [snip!] [...] computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") [...] [...] Except [some MS products], you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor [more ...], unless the Device has a separate license for the Product. Now, I'm no lawyer, but that certainly reads as though allowing *anyone at all* to connect from a remote PC to an XP Pro Workstation for the purposes of accessing an Oracle database is outside the scope of licensed activity!! A connection to an Oracle database certainly sounds to me like it would count as a "Device using, accessing, displaying or running other executable software residing on your Workstation". That would not even allow me to use the 6 USB connections, and 4 Firewire, and then connect a (non-USB) keyboard... Frank -that's what was asked about the barcode scanner, I think. Those are 'peripherals', not 'Devices'. Devices are defined in the EULA I
Sorry - did not read all of the thread.
originally quoted as something which makes use of file and print sharing services, IIS and Remote Access. Your keyboard, USB tea cosy and Firewire-powered undergarment warmer would not count!! (Though a Firewire-powered undergarment is probably illegal for other reasons).

Not in the thread I respond to here, the one you quote from
eula.txt in \WINDOWS\system32 - that made me respond in
the first place: a device being defined as a computer or
other electronic device (how vague can you get?!?), and
any device using software on the workstation (presumably, the
Product software, not just *any* s/w - which, btw leaves the
option to install a non-MS TCP/IP stack...) Surely that would not hold in any court. MS wish they could, surely, but it sounds to me like "illegally restrictive". But then, I'm not a lawyer, either :) If indeed it had the meaning you surmise, then it would obviously be a complete no-no. But is it likely Microsoft would go to the trouble of drafting such an indefensible license agreement? (Rhetorical question!!). On the other hand, if we distinguish between peripherals which are necessary to the function of the device, or which enhance the function of the device; and other *devices* themselves seeking to attach to the device for some mere application purpose, then it's not that restrictive. You have to go also, I think, by 'industry practice' -and it's well known in the industry, generally, that Workstations aren't servers, but that they have a plethora of Firewire and USB ports for a reason. I was afraid this would happen... I declare the end of my participation in the thread, but I can't resist a bit of Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company legal banter....

Eh? Care to explain the Carlill v ... bit? It'll be Donaghue and Stevenson with the snail in the ginger beer bottle next...
Ditto - I heard about scorpions in beer, but snails in ginger beer?
Must be a French invention ;-) (at least - the french would regard
it an invention)
Merry XMas, and a happy 2005! Frank van Bortel You too. Regards HJR


--
Merry XMAS, and all the best for 2005,
Frank van Bortel

[Niall Litchfield]

Frank van Bortel wrote: I was afraid this would happen... I declare the end of my
participation in the thread, but I can't resist a bit of Carlill v The Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company legal banter.... Eh? Care to explain the Carlill v ... bit?

UK Contract Law precedent.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/carlill.htm early case about what
constitutes a contract - at least in the UK.

It'll be Donaghue and Stevenson with the snail in the ginger beer
bottle next...

Again UK case law precedent.
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/donoghue.htm

You'll be relieved to know that I can't find the case of the exploding
coffin, and my law course was too long ago for me to recall its name
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com