Conference bulova::decw_jan-89_to_nov-90

I'm not sure that what SHOW USER calls a user is what licenses call
a user.

For example, if the same username is logged on in multiple places,
then SHOW USER reasonably says "number of users = 1" and further
output shows that that user has "N" interactive detached processes (and
maybe "M" batch detached processes, etc etc).

However, for licensing terms, each instance of the same username is
counted as a separate user, right?

Under DECwindows, you get a "SHOW USERable" interactive process in the 
following cases:

	One for the Session Manager
	One for each FileView window
	One for each DECterm window

I suspect your "minimum 2" is due to SM and VUE.  You can get rid of
VUE if you like.  However, I don't think that really has anything to
do with your problem.

(SHOW USER stuff in this reply refers to VMS T5.2)

VMS counts one for each user that is logged in from the following
sources:

	1 for each user connected by direct connect terminal.
	1 for each user connected by a LAT connect terminal.
	1 for each user connected by SET HOST / CTERM regardless
	  of where the SET HOST is initiated. (SET HOST 0 counts!)
	1 for each DECwindows session that the machine is supporting.
	  It does not count 1 for DECterms unless you explicitly log in
          to the DECterm (Via CHILD or other mechanism) nor does it 
          count any processes that the session creates.
	1 for each UIS user. It does not count autologin terminals, and
          unlike DECwindows does not count when you explicitly login to 
          a terminal emulator.


There may be one I forgot, but that's close.

James
 

    RE: .0
    
    Besides, the "two" user license is not really two users. It is *ONE*
    user plus the ability to do system management. Two real users is most
    likely a violation of the license agreement and future versions of
    hardware/software may well enforce this. See the multitude of
    discussion on this elsewhere (the old DECWindows conference and
    VMSnotes I think...look for responses by Greg Robert)

RE: .3 in re: .0

Correct.  VMS VAXstations are LICENSED for a single user only.

	  The PAK _allows_ two logins for system management
	  purposes (like if your screen process is wedged and
	  you need to login and shoot something).

Similarily, VAXservers are licensed for ZERO users but have
a two user PAK for the same reason.

(Shouting for attention only):

	SALES AND SERVICE, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT LET
	YOUR CUSTOMERS THINK THAT VAXSTATIONS AND VAXSERVERS
	ARE "TWO USER" SYSTEMS.  THEY ARE NOT NOT NOT.

Now, if we DO find an alternate system management solution in
the future, we MAY disable the "extra" logins, and you will have
some very upset customers if you haven't set expectations
correctly.

- greg

VMS also, rather stupidly in my opinion, counts each session of a
VT330/340 as a whole user, when using the VAX SSU facility.

    RE: .4
    
    I do not understand the distinction between 1 user + 1 for system
    management and 2 user. We have in the past allowed 1 user on the
    workstation plus one user other the console port. Now with DECwindows
    and VMS 5.1-B you cannot log into the console port with DECwindows
    running. So, if your workstation process freezes, you cannot log
    on from the console port. This is a change in the way the
    user has been able to access the system. In fact, we always use
    to say we included a 2-user license. By cutting it to one, we
    have, in my opinion, made the systems less usable for the customer.
    
    I have followed this type of discussion since we went to 2 user
    licenses, several years ago. Richard Wood in WSPBM, who is charged
    with this issue for PBM, has always told me that the intent was
    to have a two user license. So, I am still confused.
    
    The bottom line is we have to find a way to restore this customer
    to the same level of functionality he has had in the past. Which
    may mean getting him a higher user license. He never violated the
    licensing we put on the system. It seems that we have changed the
    rules.
    
    Do people agree?

re: .6           -< This is a Change in Policy >-

No, it is a change in a technical implemenation, not policy.

>    I do not understand the distinction between 1 user + 1 for system
>    management and 2 user. We have in the past allowed 1 user on the
>    workstation plus one user other the console port.

No, we did not allow one user on the workstation plus one on the
consol port.  We allowed you to login on one or the other, or
on the consol if the workstation was frozen and you needed to
correct that.  We did NOT allow two users where allow means LICENSE.

>   Now with DECwindows and VMS 5.1-B you cannot log into the console
>   port with DECwindows running.

Nor, under most circumstances, should you be able too.

>    So, if your workstation process freezes, you cannot log
>    on from the console port. This is a change in the way the
>    user has been able to access the system.

This should work.  I suspect you have one of the PAKs that
was incorrectly issued with 100 units instead of 200.  If
this does not work, enter a QAR.  It is a technical bug or
a mis-issued key.

>   In fact, we always use to say we included a 2-user license.

You may have said that.  You should not have.  We have NEVER
offered two user licenses for workstations.  Ok???

>   By cutting it to one, we have, in my opinion, made the systems
>   less usable for the customer.

We have not cut it to 1 ... it always was 1.
    
>    I have followed this type of discussion since we went to 2 user
>    licenses, several years ago.

We did NOT go to 2 user licenses several years ago.  Ok???

>    Richard Wood in WSPBM, who is charged
>    with this issue for PBM, has always told me that the intent was
>    to have a two user license. So, I am still confused.

It sounds like Richard is too.  Perhaps you should suggest that
he contact me by mail.  Or, perhaps he keeps saying, correctly,
that you should be able to login a second time to correct a
system management problem ... that is true, but it is NOT a two
user LICENSE.
    
>    The bottom line is we have to find a way to restore this customer
>    to the same level of functionality he has had in the past. Which
>    may mean getting him a higher user license. He never violated the
>    licensing we put on the system. It seems that we have changed the
>    rules.
    
>    Do people agree?

Yes, the customer should be able to unstick a stuck workstation.
Other than that, no, we definately do not agree.

- greg

Let's go back to your original note:

>    The problem is - I have a customer who relies on having one user
>    logged in on the graphics head and one user logged in through
>    a terminal server or console port. This has always been within
>    the two user license restriction.

Now, let me put it very simply:

	The LICENSE we sell with workstations is for a single user.
	That license does not allow your customer to rely upon
	having two users logged in, and it never did.

	Obviously if you told the customer it was a two user license
	they haven't done anything wrong; but you have told them
	something that isn't true.

The issue of unsticking a stuck workstation is a red herring to
the real problem here.  If there is a problem with the code or
the key, and we fix it, the customer still cannot rely upon
having two users logged in --- they aren't licensed for that.

- greg

        There is always the brute force way of unsticking a workstation...
        the halt (or on/off) switch...
        
        q :-)
        
        With that handy too, who needs management licenses.
        
        

Greg,

Back when I was a lowly customer, I was informed by several different DEC
sales and marketing people, and read in Sales Update that workstations
had 2 user licenses.  Now, that may not have been what was intended by
the people who thought up that licensing arrangement.  But it was what
was passed along to a VERY large number of customers because of information
sent to salespersons through official channels.  Even if that was wrong,
to change that now is indeed a change in the rules.

Dick

On this particular subject I am constrained to simply repeating
the official intent and pointing to the Ts and Cs.  I can't
speculate about what might have been communicated that conflicts
with that.

Unless the Ts and Cs are officialy changed, I urge sales to
communicate them correctly to customers --- else you risk very
unhappy customers in the future.

The last time I looked, the Ts and Cs were explicit, though
other communications may have been inaccurate.

If you can mail me a pointer to the sales update article you
mentioned it could be helpful.

- greg

Greg,

Seeing as I was at Teradyne then and it was over 2 years ago, I am not
likely to be able to point out the specific article.  My main point was
that this information was conveyed to many customers by people in a
position to make commitments for digital and therefore became the defacto
company position even if it was contrary to what was intended.  We are
stuck with a large number of customers who believe that we made a
commitment to a 2 user license.  As far as they are concerned WE changed
the rules.  PERCEPTION IS REALITY IS PERCEPTION IS REALITY IS....

Dick

    Gee, maybe we did change. So? C'mon, customers know we change our
    offerings over the years.
    
    
    We can't remain comitted because of a misunderstanding from years ago.
    
    Lifes a bitch...

I agree things can change, a little bit at a time.  When the change
means that a customer needs twice as many machines to serve the same
number of users then we are probably going a little too far.

Dick

    If a sales office screws up it would be impolite to punish the
    customer, especially when the market is about to undergo a slowdown.
    Maybe the local office can convince Greg Robert to build some 2-user
    licenses and give them to the customer; upping the local office's
    sales quota by an appropriate delta.
    
      John

    If the Sales Office screws up, then the Sales office should not rely
    upon Engineering to fix THEIR mistake.
    
    Andy

I'm not sure I can articulate this kind of thing well, but I'll
give it a try.  I wish I was Simon Szeto or Tom Eggers!

-----------------

I'm sorry, but some of this discussion is inappropriate for a notes
conference.  The matter of the Ts and Cs, their legal interpretation,
and our business practices around them can be stated here, but we
should not speculate about them, or speculate about the implications
of statements that individual account management may have made to
customers.

An example is that statements like "perception is reality" can
be applied without consequence to engineering issues, but they
are extremely loaded when applied to legal issues.  I'm not a
lawyer, but it seems likely that a lawyer would take exception
to such a claim.  In fact, I suspect they might say, "no, the
contract is reality".

I hear you all, but I can't say much beyond what I've already said,
which is to clairify what I understand the official position to be
(and I deal directly with those who make that decision).

If a customer reaction ensues we will have to deal with it as we
do with other business/legal issues.

I've personally done my best to convey engineering and field
sentiments to the business people, though I must treat them
as "anecdotal" since we obviously don't have a log of all
conversations and statements that have been made.  Nothing said
here has surprised me, but I can't comment on it other than
to quote the terms and conditions.

If you want to discuss this further, probably the best way
is to ask, "if notes didn't exist, what would be the offical
way for me to comment upon this?" ... clue: it isn't to
engineering ... it may be something you want to discuss
with field account management and then pass upward through
official channels.  But it might be better to wait until
you get something from those channels in the first place
to respond to.

If you think about it for a minute, I think you'll see why
that is the correct way to comment on a legal matter, or
on a particular account situation.

Ok?  Don't mean to sound like a bureaucrat, but them's the
rules as I understand them.  Legal things are almost like
personel issues.

- greg

ps: don't bother trying to persuade me to issue a certain
    kind of PAK to fix anything ... it's not a technical
    issue, and it would be inappropriate to subvert a
    business decision with a technical workaround.  This
    is not an LMF issue.

The following message was sent to ALL CSC employees regarding a problem with 
licenses and the granting of TSPs (Temporary Service Paks) to help customers
who had been sent the wrong license.  If this is inappropriate to the 
discussion, the moderator should feel free to delete.


<imagine form feed here>

From:	CSCMA::PATTERSON    "CSCMA Business Applications Support Unit" 13-FEB-1989 11:32:29.38
To:	LEVY
CC:	
Subj:	FYI

From:	CSCMA::HARRIS       "LINDA HARRIS 292-2349" 13-FEB-1989 11:05
To:	@MGRS.DIS
Subj:	attached... fyi

From:	BSS::PRATT        "Dan US/CSC @CX03-1/Q8 DTN 522-4750; (719)548-4750"  8-FEB-1989 13:16
To:	ABEYTA,NM%CSC32::DRIVER,NM%CSC32::MCCLELLAND,HOLLY,CSCMA::HARRIS
Subj:	Multi-user Workstation -- License PAK Unit Sizing Issue

Here is the long-awaited solution on the multi-user key issue for
workstations --

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROBLEM:

Customers that purchased Vaxstation 3XXX series or Vaxstation 8000 
machines with VMS 4.X software were given the rights/ability to enable 
their systems for eight (8) users.  They were also sent a License PAK 
for VMS-User Based sized at 100 Units.  As those same customers either 
received a service update or as those same non-service customers 
purchased H-Kits, for VMS 5.0 - the amount of users authorized by 
either the original License PAK or the WMUP reduced their usage to two 
(2) users, ie a single user system.


SOLUTION:

If a customer is using the WMUP SUP:

	The SUP was sized at 200 Units, which enables 2 users.  You
	may instruct the customer to increase the number of Units from
	200 to 800, which is required for an 8-user Workstation.  (The
	VMS Update WMUP SUP was sized at 200 units and encoded as
	"MOD_UNITS.")   It is not necessary to issue a TSP in this
	situation.  (When the customer eventually receives their formal
	Licence PAK, it will reflect the type of license the customer
	purchased.)

For customers holding a License PAK (sized at 100 Units):

	A TSP for VMS must be issued as License PAKs cannot be resized.
	(This will enable unlimited use temporarily, until the LR4
	process triggers the distribution of the correctly sized License
	PAK.)

re: 18

> PROBLEM:

> Customers that purchased Vaxstation 3XXX series or Vaxstation 8000 
> machines with VMS 4.X software were given the rights/ability to enable 
> their systems for eight (8) users.

Is that all VAXstation 3XXX and VAXstation 8000 or some?  Either way
this would appear to be a case where DEC has decided that those were
the rights that were intended to be granted.  I think that may be
different from some of the topics here, but I don't see a problem with
posting your note.  Once Digital made the "rights" decision then we
have PAKs to correct the field implementation.

BUT, there is a big difference between cases where Digital has
resolved a customer situation based on what the corporate intention
was, as opposed to cases where a customer may have been told something
that disagrees with the corporate intent.

It is the latter where sensitivity creeps in.  Your note simply
documents an action we've take (so it is historical) and I don't
think there is much problem with that.  It's speculation about
possibly unresolved things that has to be discussed carefully, or
better, discussed elsewhere/elsewise

- greg

    Moderator speaking:  Could I suggest that most everything of relavence to
    DECwindows (the subject of this conference, remember) in the topic has
    been aired, and that those who wish to persue it further should see Greg's
    note (around .16 or so) which made suggestions about the correct forum
    for this sort of discussion.
    
    Thanks you.
    
    Burns
    

             <<< BULOVA::DOCD$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DECWINDOWS.NOTE;4 >>>
         -< DECWindows - Please do a DIR before starting a new topic! >-
================================================================================
Note 726.0             Technical VMS license issues again?            No replies
EEMELI::TUURI "Pekka Tuuri DTN 879-5223"             32 lines   4-MAY-1989 03:41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    	Hello!
    
    	I would like to know TECHNICALLY what a "user" is in DECwindows
    environment in terms of VMS licensing. Yes, I have read note 421 and the
    replies and I know that VAXstation is a single user system and that
    VAXserver is a zero user system.
    
    Let us take an example.
    
    There is a PC user who has a PC with PC-DECwindows Display Facility 
    for MSDOS. There are also two multiuser VAX VMS DECwindows application 
    engines (VAX1 and VAX2) in the network.
    
    The PC user starts dwdos (PC DECwindows) and gets the locally running
    PC session manager. The PC user fills in the form that the Session Manager
    provides and starts a Window Manager, a DECterm terminal and a Clock 
    which are clients in VAX1 and two DECterms and a File View which are
    clients in VAX2. Now, in terms of licensing, HOW MANY license slots 
    does this PC user use in VAX1 and in VAX2 ?
    
    Next with the help of a DECterm connection to VAX1 he starts
    another DW application at VAX1 using RUN/DETACH VMS command. Does 
    this detached process use one or zero license slots in VAX1 ?
    
    And finally he submits a batch job that starts yet another DW
    application. Does this batch job require license slots ? 
    
    
    	Regards, Pekka Tuuri
    

    Re .21:
    
    Quite frankly, I have customers who need answers to this questions
    also.
    
    And I am sure that every Sales Rep and every Software Specialist
    in this company would be better off knowing what the answers were.

Heffner's business group has committed to issuing a clairfication at
some time TBD (sorry).  Contact Dave Chase at star::chase if you have
an immediate need, or to supply example "questions".

- greg

    Hi    
          
    Is there official clarification available or do I need to contact 
    star::chase for an answer to .21
          
    Thanks 
          
    Norrie

    re: .11, et al
    
    The July 1990 Competitive Sales Update cleary lists the VAXserver
    400 as a 2-user system (It's very re-assuring to the field to see
    that DEC has a clear, simple, and easy to understand by all license
    policy on our operating systems :-)).  
    
    Who understands our VMS and Ultrix user license policy, actual O/S
    implementation and behaviour, and how our client/server model is
    suppose to work?  (It cracks me up when my sales support people
    tell me that the way to start a client application on a server "Well,
    first you set host (TO A 0-USER SYSTEM ..or is it now 2-user) to
    it, then set display.....).  I have no confidence that DEC really
    understands this.  WE have a great workaround...ALL of our VMS and
    Ultrix systems have a 64 or unlimited number of users licensed.
    
    My customers are now configuring Ultrix with unlimited number of
    users, and only timesharing VMS in client/server implementations.
    It appears that far more than policy is a problem.
    
    Is star::chase the contact for client/server, user counts, VMS,
    Ultrix, etc.?
    
    Jim
    NASA Sales