Comments on: ArcGIS Server 9.2 ADF Licensing Issue! http://geo.geek.nz/imported/arcgis-server-9-2-adf-licensing-issue/ Everything Spatial Focused On Esri With A Wee New Zealand Perspective Thrown Into The Mix! Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:53:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Frank Robijn http://geo.geek.nz/imported/arcgis-server-9-2-adf-licensing-issue/#comment-162 Frank Robijn Wed, 31 Dec 1969 23:00:00 +0000 http://172.31.22.116/?p=587#comment-162 <p>In my last project - a truly enterprise application - the web UI was hosted both on the company's web servers (a shared platform, many machines in a DMZ behind a firewall) and on the intranet platform (different authentication/authorization), also a shared platform. The AGS and GIS-related services were running on a separate, dedicated machine. This is a very typical enterprise setup: shared platforms are very important because they are relatively cheap (because the IT costs are spread out over many customers = business units), are well balanced, etc, while dedicated machines are much, much more expensive and used for special OS environments only.</p> <p>My impression of the new license strategy is that ESRI is still equating "enterprise" with "enterprise GIS department". Real enterprises have IT departments (the infra guys) that nowadays prescribe deployment strategies that are moving away from ESRI's architectural blueprints. </p> In my last project – a truly enterprise application – the web UI was hosted both on the company’s web servers (a shared platform, many machines in a DMZ behind a firewall) and on the intranet platform (different authentication/authorization), also a shared platform. The AGS and GIS-related services were running on a separate, dedicated machine. This is a very typical enterprise setup: shared platforms are very important because they are relatively cheap (because the IT costs are spread out over many customers = business units), are well balanced, etc, while dedicated machines are much, much more expensive and used for special OS environments only.

My impression of the new license strategy is that ESRI is still equating "enterprise" with "enterprise GIS department". Real enterprises have IT departments (the infra guys) that nowadays prescribe deployment strategies that are moving away from ESRI’s architectural blueprints.

]]> By: VBAHole http://geo.geek.nz/imported/arcgis-server-9-2-adf-licensing-issue/#comment-163 VBAHole Wed, 31 Dec 1969 23:00:00 +0000 http://172.31.22.116/?p=587#comment-163 <p>"Now can someone justify to me why you would want to the place the ADF on a separate machine when the utilisation on the ArcGIS Server is 0?"</p> <p>There are several things wrong with this statement. For starters, look at the names of the products we are talking about. The D in ADF stands for Developer. It's tough to explain to clients why they are paying extra for something named Developer when you are the developer trying to deliver a polished application. Secondly the S in AGS is for Server. If the application that you mention is not using ArcGIS Server in anyway then something is wrong with either the architecture or the naming convention. Server implies (and used to imply to ESRI) that this is a powerful machine with minimal user interaction. It's a rack server in a closet that doesn't have iTunes on it because you use the horsepower. Your application (or rather ESRI's suggested implementation of it) has this workhorse of a server sitting around doing nothing on it expect housing some expensive software.</p> <p>While I'm up here on my soapbox: Is there another adf in the world that is licensed or this expensive? Is there an IT disciple out there today that would recommend installing all components of an application on a single machine because the software vendor asked nicely?</p> <p>If the licensing architecture was the way it was supposed to be (or even the way it will be shortly) then ESRI executives would have no problem defending it along with the licensing scheme.</p> <p>Based on the rantings at the conference it sounds like ESRI would like for the users to tell them how to make, use and charge for their products. I don't have an issue with this but I honestly don't think they know how to listen yet.</p> "Now can someone justify to me why you would want to the place the ADF on a separate machine when the utilisation on the ArcGIS Server is 0?"

There are several things wrong with this statement. For starters, look at the names of the products we are talking about. The D in ADF stands for Developer. It’s tough to explain to clients why they are paying extra for something named Developer when you are the developer trying to deliver a polished application. Secondly the S in AGS is for Server. If the application that you mention is not using ArcGIS Server in anyway then something is wrong with either the architecture or the naming convention. Server implies (and used to imply to ESRI) that this is a powerful machine with minimal user interaction. It’s a rack server in a closet that doesn’t have iTunes on it because you use the horsepower. Your application (or rather ESRI’s suggested implementation of it) has this workhorse of a server sitting around doing nothing on it expect housing some expensive software.

While I’m up here on my soapbox: Is there another adf in the world that is licensed or this expensive? Is there an IT disciple out there today that would recommend installing all components of an application on a single machine because the software vendor asked nicely?

If the licensing architecture was the way it was supposed to be (or even the way it will be shortly) then ESRI executives would have no problem defending it along with the licensing scheme.

Based on the rantings at the conference it sounds like ESRI would like for the users to tell them how to make, use and charge for their products. I don’t have an issue with this but I honestly don’t think they know how to listen yet.

]]>