This is my first week at the new client, and so far I don't have access to the SQL Server I'm supposed to be writing load routines for. Why? Because the client head of software procurement is convinced that Microsoft's license for SQL Server means that installing Enterprise Manager (the DBA tool) is equivalent to bringing up a new instance. That is, there's no difference between a client and a server.
It doesn't matter that I have the licensing FAQ page from Microsoft's web site, or the text of the EULA, or anything. He has a letter from Microsoft -- which he couldn't show me -- saying "client = server". Nothing I can do or say makes a difference. We need another server license, bang, full stop, that's it.
Me: "Ask any SQL Server DBA. The client is separate from the server."
Him: "Not according to this Microsoft letter."
Me: "I've worked in a lot of SQL Server shops. I can refer you to the procurement manager in any of them."
Him: "They're all wrong."
Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
So now I have to wait for the client's project manager, who's out of town this week, to approve the $1,200 expenditure, followed by some unknown amount of time to get a server license. All this because somebody's scared out of their wits by Microsoft's nasty licensing games.
Couldn't you just contact Microsoft on the phone? Feel free to explain to me why it's not possible -- I just have the feeling that this is a guy that, if he feels he can blame someone at Microsoft for telling him this, he'll go ahead with it.
I'm sure there's some obvious thing I don't know about interacting with Microsoft directly, so go 'head and learn me.
Re:Naivete
VSarkiss on 2003-05-14T14:52:39
You're presuming this person is rational. It's more like, "I know what's going on, don't try to confuse me with the facts."
I showed him the text of the EULA, I pointed out that the server component won't even install on Win2k professional, but to no avail. He couldn't even get the name of the product right, but he knew how it worked. And no, he doesn't know where that letter from MS is, but he knows what it said: the whole client company is violating the license agreement.
I actually wondered whether he's getting a kickback from Microsoft or is skimming the budget. But I always believe you shouldn't presume evil when ignorance will fit the facts.
