locked
Not supported: so what?!? RRS feed

  • General discussion

  • I've been tired of the dishonest attitude that if something isn't supported then it must be bad...then I saw this:

    "But what you want to do isn't supported, and is an explicit violation of the EULA for Windows Home Server, which prohibits activating roles on your server which Microsoft hasn't activated by default, and which specifically mentions the Application Server role as not permitted. So I'm going to have to ask you to drop it."

    Since when does "unsupported" mean we can't do something? Before writing one of my many unsupported tutorials I asked the MS WHS team if it was OK and they said yes, yet we have "some" here that seem to insinuate otherwise.

    So, again, I ask for *official* MS input... (not excuses)

     


    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas Paine
    • Changed type S_M_E Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:30 AM
    Tuesday, March 30, 2010 3:29 AM

All replies

  • Can you kindly link the original thread so someone might be able to actually evaluate what you say? Otherwise it's hearsay, which is at best one small step removed from trolling...

    If you have concerns to air with Microsoft, or want clarification on something, you can always send an email to whsforum@microsoft.com; I know that email address still reaches a real person. Also, if you think someone has overstepped (even me) you can use the Report As Abuse link that every post includes. Seriously, you should use it...

    Unsupported, in the sense it's generally used here, means that it's outside the interfaces that Microsoft has built into Windows Home Server for the average user. It implies increased risk, because there are some tools on the desktop that can cause significant data loss, with no warning whatsoever. But if you understand the risks, or you don't understand that there are risks, or you decide you're feeling a "Hey, look at this!" moment coming on (insert picture of fool standing in the back of a pickup truck screaming down a dirt road here), by all means proceed. :)

    As for the EULA and server roles, I'm going to refer you to Technet for a list of roles and what they mean. The roles activated by Microsoft are:

    • File Server
    • Print Server
    • Application Server
    • Streaming Media Server
    Per the EULA "You may not use server roles other than the roles that are already enabled during the server setup process." So that lets out Terminal Services (other than Remote Desktop for Administration mode), running DCPROMO to make your server a domain controller, installing DNS or RAS servers, etc.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:33 AM
    Moderator
  • I wouldn't go quite as far as calling it abuse but it's my understanding that unsupported (or not) doesn't mean we can't share and discuss WHS related "tweaks" which is what he was asking about.

    Since you asked for a link:

    http://social.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/whshardware/thread/d4755f18-cffe-435b-b84d-aa77c87237a8

     

    My old tutorials are far more "unsupported" than just turning on a service/RDP/etc but they're stable. If they violate the eula I wouldn't know; 99.99% of people ignore them.

     

     


    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas Paine
    Tuesday, March 30, 2010 8:01 AM
  • The way I take it is that unsupported means just that.  If you carry out an unsupported action and it goes wrong then you have no one to blame but yourself - the fact that something is unsupported should be taken as a warning - it doesn't mean it's not possible.
    --
    Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:53 AM
  • The OP asked about using his server in a way which would require him to activate a server role not activated by Microsoft (Terminal Server, no matter what I wrote over there). This goes way beyond a "tweak", and activating additional roles is, as I have stated already, explicitly prohibited by the EULA.

    Using Windows Home Server the way the OP wished is also unsupported, but the two statements are not related.

    And as for ignoring the EULA, it's a legal document to which you have agreed, whether you bothered to read it or not. And your old tutorials probably do violate the EULA, but in ways that Microsoft doesn't really mind (reverse engineering, mostly).


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:17 PM
    Moderator
  • Hmm...the original poster of the linked post never knowingly suggests to break the EULA.  It seems he actually mentions that he'll try to find a different solution if breaking the EULA is the only alternative.

     

    On the particular topic of the post, I am not knowledgeable at all...but I do find it unfortunate that the post was locked.  To me, it's unclear why it was locked, who locked it, and when it was locked.  It would seem appropriate for there to be some mention of why it was closed.  (I do see Ken's request to "drop it", but the poster does change the discussion a bit after being informed about the possible EULA violation.)

     

    The WHS forums have always been very professional, cordial, and above all, very helpful.  My guess would be that a moderator locked the thread either because of Ken's "drop it" request or perhaps because he/she was worried about allowing discussion of "breaking the EULA" to continue.  In this particular case, I think discussion was cut off a bit too quickly.  In his first post, he's even asking "will there be a similar solution on windows home server soon?".  Discussion of what is possible, or what could come seems like it would fall outside of EULA regardless since it could change with the software.

     

    Well, I think that's probably all I have to say on this.  I simply wanted to throw in my support for unhindered discussion in these forums as long as it is kept civil.

    Tuesday, March 30, 2010 12:31 PM
  • And as for ignoring the EULA, it's a legal document to which you have agreed, whether you bothered to read it or not. And your old tutorials probably do violate the EULA, but in ways that Microsoft doesn't really mind (reverse engineering, mostly).

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)

    I believe they could or even might but my point is, short of piracy, we should be able to discuss "things" even if they're unsupported, or even if they do violate the eula, without getting threads locked. If my tutorials were/are allowed then why was his thread locked other than you not wanting somebody to do something with their own WHS?

    Surely, starting an unsupported service would fall into the same "MS doesn't really mind" category that my tutorials fall under but his thread was locked as if he asked how to get around activation or other serious violations.


    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas Paine
    Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:37 AM
  • Hmm...the original poster of the linked post never knowingly suggests to break the EULA.  It seems he actually mentions that he'll try to find a different solution if breaking the EULA is the only alternative.

     

    On the particular topic of the post, I am not knowledgeable at all...but I do find it unfortunate that the post was locked.  To me, it's unclear why it was locked, who locked it, and when it was locked.  It would seem appropriate for there to be some mention of why it was closed.  (I do see Ken's request to "drop it", but the poster does change the discussion a bit after being informed about the possible EULA violation.)

     

    The WHS forums have always been very professional, cordial, and above all, very helpful.  My guess would be that a moderator locked the thread either because of Ken's "drop it" request or perhaps because he/she was worried about allowing discussion of "breaking the EULA" to continue.  In this particular case, I think discussion was cut off a bit too quickly.  In his first post, he's even asking "will there be a similar solution on windows home server soon?".  Discussion of what is possible, or what could come seems like it would fall outside of EULA regardless since it could change with the software.

     

    Well, I think that's probably all I have to say on this.  I simply wanted to throw in my support for unhindered discussion in these forums as long as it is kept civil.

    I agree, he did ask for other alternatives and even if he didn't it's not like he was asking how to hack activation or something.

    I don't think it should have been locked either, which is why I asked for official MS input.

    I also think the "drop it" line was too much, in this case, regardless of the eula and even if unlocked now, the user may have already bailed due the way it was already handled...

     


    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas Paine
    Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:43 AM
  • I couldn't tell you why the thread was locked, because I didn't do it. A Microsoft employee did, or another moderator. I could speculate on the reasons, but I don't see any point.

    And while I do understand your position, these forums are not a free-for-all. Microsoft is quite sensitive about certain clauses in the EULA, for example the ones about running DCPROMO and activating additional server roles. You can expect that such discussions will continue to be shut down quickly until such time as Microsoft changes their attitude. They seem much less concerned about most of the other clauses, at least as far as Windows Home Server enthusiasts are concerned. Why the difference? I couldn't say, other than the vague "revenue protection" excuse, because (per my .sig) I don't work for Microsoft.

    If you have concerns or input about forum moderation, I've already told you what the appropriate channels are. Open debate in the forums is not one of those channels, however. If you want to address something privately with a moderator, some of us have our email addresses in our profiles here. I will warn you that I may not reply if you send me email; I'm busy and if I judge no reply is needed I'm likely not to spend time on more than a simple "thanks for the input" (if that). However, I do read the email I get from forum users.


    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:42 AM
    Moderator
  • I couldn't tell you why the thread was locked, because I didn't do it.

    Can you tell me why my last reply was deleted then?
    :rolleyes:

    "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -- Thomas Paine
    Friday, April 2, 2010 4:27 AM
  • No. I didn't do it; I don't even see the post you reference (though your forum history says you posted a couple of times yesterday), so it was probably done by forums staff, since the posts moderators delete are still visible to moderators. Possibly someone felt you were uncivil, or that you had failed to read this and understand that it applies to you:

    ...
    If you have concerns or input about forum moderation, I've already told you what the appropriate channels are. Open debate in the forums is not one of those channels, however.
    ...
    In other words, this discussion is over. If you have questions or complaints about moderation here, use the channels I've already referenced. You could also try the forums Feedback form , but I don't know what happens with issues submitted that way.

    I'm not on the WHS team, I just post a lot. :)
    Friday, April 2, 2010 11:22 AM
    Moderator