CodeWeavers Release Server Version Of CrossOver 209
Jeremy White writes: CodeWeavers has just
launched the Server Edition of CrossOver Office. Server Edition
provides Windows applications like Microsoft Office to thin clients
and previously unreachable platforms like Solaris/SPARC. It's
designed to compete directly with Citrix and Windows Terminal Server
solutions, primarily on price (watch that TCO drop, baby). The most
delicious irony will come when we release a Windows client, and we start
serving Windows applications to a Windows desktop through a Linux
server.""
CodeWeavers, yeah! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CodeWeavers, yeah! (Score:2)
Re:CodeWeavers, yeah! (Score:2)
Re:CodeWeavers, yeah! (Score:2)
"I've" is a valid contraction
"English" is a proper noun and should therefore be capitalised.
You should not start sentences with conjunctions.
Re:CodeWeavers, yeah! (Score:2)
Re:CodeWeavers, yeah! (Score:2)
> "ok. where's the library at, asshole?"
The problem with this is, the rule "never end a sentence with a
preposition" is a mnemonic rule; it can be used as an aid to memory,
but it does not tell the whole story of the way the grammar works.
In particular, the structure of a prepositional phrase in English
is as follows: preposition optional_modifiers object. i.e., a
preposition is followed by an object (which may be immediately
preceded by attributive modifiers, as any noun may be).
However, this doesn't tell the whole story either, because it
assumes that the preposition is functioning as a preposition.
There are other ways prepositions can function. In particular,
many verbs can be used in conjunction with a following preposition,
and this may alter their meaning (though in some cases it does not).
For example, "Before varnishing the board, I had to sand off the
rough parts." Here the preposition "off" goes with the verb "sand",
and can be considered a part of the compound verb "sand off". The
words that follow ("the rough parts") are the direct object of the
verb; the preposition itself does not have an object. This is quite
correct. The verb may in some cases also be intransitive, in which
case there may be no words following, and the preposition can indeed
end the sentence, without breaking any real rules of grammar. In
addition, some of these verbs, together with their preposition,
can be used as other parts of speech. For example, "We held a
bake off". This also is correct: the preposition "off" does not
have an object because it is not functioning as a preposition but
rather forming the compound verb "bake off" (which is then used as
a noun -- another grammar topic for another day).
"Where is the library at" is a marginal case. It could be argued
that there is a compound verb "is at", but if that were the case
we would expect it to sound natural if phrased differently, as
"Where at is the library", and that just sounds wrong. So my
take on the matter is that "Where is the library at" is incorrect
grammar, although the most-commonly-stated reason is a gross oversimplification.
The rule about not starting sentences with conjunctions is also
an oversimplification. Placing unrelated words before the
conjunction does not change anything -- though it is true that
in most cases a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence is
being used incorrectly.
Re:CodeWeavers, yeah! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CodeWeavers, yeah! (Score:2)
Irony? (Score:2, Insightful)
The irony is that you are spending all kinds of time to develop an aplication that merely goes through additional potential points of failure to accomplish, well, nothing of substance. I hope you don't count this as a win...
Re:Irony? (Score:3, Informative)
I think you missed the point. Because the Office licenses are per-machine, rather than per-user (as far as I know), 1 license of Office can be used to serve hundreds of clients with a fast enough machine. It's a pretty big loophole in their licensing, but due to the lack of multi-desktop remoting in Windows I guess they never thought any body would figure out how to exploit it.
Re:Irony? (Score:3, Insightful)
Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:5, Informative)
Try doing some basic research [microsoft.com]:
If you don't want to click the link, here you go:
Note: Every device that connects to a terminal server will need to be properly licensed for its own terminal server usage, in addition to being licensed appropriately to use other applications and servers. Use terminal servers to centrally manage and support the deployment of Office suites in your organization. Dedicate a license for Office for every computer on which you plan to use Office. Examples of computers that might run Office on a terminal server include Windows-based workstations, Macintoshes, and UNIX workstations. The terminal servers themselves do not require Office licenses, unless someone sitting at the console will be running Office.
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:2)
Hmmm. Interesting - they don't seem to define "terminal server" anywhere, and the document appears to assume that you'd use Windows Terminal Services, rather than simply exporting an X display (which doesn't actually involve a terminal server at any point, client and server are reversed in X).
You're probably right though, their definition of "device" and "run" seems fairly watertight, but IANAL etc.
Another thought.... (Score:2)
Well, I'm not going to condone that. It'd be a rather not nice way of avoiding licensing fees. I guess this is most useful for the usual reasons application servers are useful, ie central control, "instant upgrades" etc.
How the court would define "terminal server" (Score:2)
they don't seem to define "terminal server" anywhere
Which means that a court will define it in a way that most closely preserves the spirit of the agreement.
and the document appears to assume that you'd use Windows Terminal Services, rather than simply exporting an X display (which doesn't actually involve a terminal server at any point, client and server are reversed in X).
A "terminal server" under the agreement would probably include any computer that exports an X display.
Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice. Use Slashdot only as a tool for getting a rough feel for other users' experience in similar situations; discuss details with your attorney.
Re:How the court would define "terminal server" (Score:2)
I kind of agree with the original poster. But I think it's a little idealistic to expect complete legal advice for free. There might be some people who would believe in something like this, but not many. However, the concept of a forum to discuss legal problems with real lawyers is not a bad idea. I'm not sure if it could be done for free, but it could probably be a very small fee. The other poster pointed out that people don't want to work for nothing. Sadly, he's right in most cases. I think people in the legal field are much less likely to be prone to giving away advice.
A few fruitless Google searches didn't realy turn up much of a free legal forum kind of thing though...
In the prologue to "CmdrTaco's Geeks": First there was Pavlov... now there is CmdrTaco - Making geeks foam at the mouth since 1997
Technicality but... (Score:2)
Anyhow, the big advantage this brings isn't the savings in licensing costs on Office, but rather the licensing costs for Windows itself. Furthermore, it makes it possible to have an office running on thin client linux systems and still be able to use MS Office if that is a necessity. This allows for centralized management and all the benefits that brings.
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:2)
Practically this is helpful in cases where you're running a Linux desktop in a corporate environment.
MyCorp purchases site licenses, which means I get to use Word, though I rarely do on my Linux or Sun box, since it's slow and the user interface aggravates me. But sometimes I can't avoid it, someone sends me a ".doc" attachment in an email. OpenOffice works for most purposes as a valid Word clone, but not in every single instance.
If CodeWeavers can put Office over the network at a reasonable level of interactivity, then there's less reasons to be tied exclusively to Windows desktops in a typical corporation.
After all, what people typically need is a tolerable means for viewing and editing .doc files.
Whether Windows sits underneath ought to be irrelevant.
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:2)
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:5, Informative)
Mostly talking about Microsoft's terminal licensing here. Read the EULA for Office and you will see a license only allows you to use it one at a time so you still will need to buy a bunch of licenses.
We used to run network installs of Word, Excel, etc. on 3.11 diskless workstations. The license was set up for concurrent use if you installed it this way. We had x number of licenses and some 3rd party software that would popup a box when x+1 copy tried to run. It would ask if you wanted to wait or send a message to one of the users currently in it and listed the current users.
I believe there has been some rewording since the 16bit days. Anyone have current EULA info?
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:4, Interesting)
"This document addresses the most commonly asked questions about licensing Microsoft® Office in a Windows terminal server environment."
Terminal server [microsoft.com] refers to a specific microsoft technology. It is doubtful that using a non-microsoft technology would invoke these restrictions at all. Besides, you could always use an earlier version of office that didn't contain the above license restrictions.
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:2)
We're not talking about the GPL here; Microsoft EULAs don't give you anything of value. Just decline the offer.
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:2)
If they wanted to make an EULA-less copy, that would be a decision on their end. However, they don't. It's theirs, and they can do whatever they want.
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:2)
Say what? Can someone who knows more than I do explain how Unix workstations can run Office (Aside from Sun's PCi card, which is effectively a separate PC anyway?)
Terminal Services client for Unix (Score:2)
rdesktop [rdesktop.org] is a free terminal services client for Unix/X11 based platforms.
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:4, Informative)
You do not need any license to connect a PC to a linux X server. There is a great deal of ambiguity as to whether the current licensing would require one office license for each concurrent user, or one for each piece of hardware that will display it. The version of office is ALWAYS run on the linux machine, it is just displayed and captures mouse/keyboard input from elsewhere.
Now, device is defined by Microsoft to mean anyplace it will contact any piece of hardware, but it is non-trivial to draw the line. Does a diskless client require a license ? How about if multiple people use wireless keyboards, monitors, and mice, but run it off the same machine ? Is then each wireless device required to have a license? Or just each combination (keyboard, mouse, monitor)? Or is the whole wireless net that all talks to one machine considered under one license?
Now, how is a thin linux client different from a wireless keyboard/monitor/mouse combination?
I think it would be fairly easy to convince a judge that per device licensing in a networked environment is completely ambiguous, whereas concurrent user licenses are straightforward.
Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional) (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Irony? (Score:3, Interesting)
Given the history of this tactic, it seems amazing that Microsoft would leave the same loophole in their own EULA.
Re:Irony? (Score:5, Interesting)
The examples were: If you have one machine used by one secretary, that's one license, but if the machine is accessable AT ALL by anyone else (even if they don't actually use it), you need a lic. for each and every such person. If you have one home machine with two users, you're required to have two licenses. (Yeah, like that's going to happen.)
Needless to say this got much growling from the audience.
Re:Irony? (Score:3, Insightful)
I must agree with parent, to refute grandparent that this is not a win for the *NIX community. (no pun intended)
But, I just want to add that cross platform interoperation, regardless of between where and where, is *always* A Good Thing for the whole world of computing.
What are the Microsoft licensing requirements? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the cynic in me would enquire as to how long people think it will be before they explicitly forbid this sort of thing.
Re:What are the Microsoft licensing requirements? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the cynic in me would enquire as to how long people think it will be before they explicitly forbid this sort of thing.
look here [codeweavers.com] to get at least some answers to questions like this.
Let me quote some of it:
Q: Can Microsoft prevent CodeWeaver's customers from running Microsoft applications on Linux?
A: No. Microsoft's end-user licenses do not preclude operating their applications under other operating systems. Were Microsoft to attempt to prohibit such usage, by requiring that Microsoft products be run only on the Windows OS, they would be in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Sherman Act precludes making the usage of a non-monopoly product dependent on the purchase of a monopoly product. Microsoft has been convicted of monopolist practices under the Sherman Act regarding their operating systems. As a result, they cannot legally make Microsoft Office dependent on having a Windows OS license.
Q: Can Microsoft sue CodeWeaver's customers for using Wine?
A: Not if you license Wine from CodeWeavers. One of the protections you receive as a customer of CodeWeavers is that you are licensing Wine from us. We warrant that the product you are buying from us is legal. If it isn't, the term of your license agreement with us says that we are responsible for its legality, not you.
So, they have found a very nice way to circumvent this problem - if Microsoft might find a way to make this illegal afterall (companies could be scared this might happen), they specifically tell you in their agreement that THEY will take the blame, not you.
Ofcourse, this means Crossover would go out of business, but that would happen anyway if MS finds a way to outlaw their software. At least it takes away the reason 'I can't buy this because I fear it might give me legal trouble'.
non-monopoly product dependent on monopoly product (Score:2)
I realize that it shouldn't matter, and it becomes an issue of monopoly maintenance rather than monopoly extension. But it may leave weasel-room. (Hopefully only enough weasel-room to fit in a clue-by-four aimed at their collective head.)
Oh, IANAL.
DMCA? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Because that is security related, Microsoft could keep the knowledge of how this interface would work under the exceptions outlined in their settlement.
2) If Codeweavers was to reverse engineer it, Microsoft could claim that their implementation was circumventing an access control and take them to court under the DMCA. Moreover, since Codeweavers actually sells these products, they could actually be brought up on criminal charges.
Number two might make for an interesting court battle, assuming codeweavers has the resources to fight it.
Re:DMCA? (Score:2)
The DMCA expressly allows reverse engineering for the porpoise of interoperability.
Re:DMCA? (Score:2)
Any relation to the salmon of knowledge? :)
Re:DMCA? (Score:2)
So get somebody in Hungary to do it. Any non american in fact.
Would CodeWeavers get sued? I don't think so, because it's to do with interoperability, not circumvention. They are trying to faithfully recreate the Office XP product activation stuff for instance.
Another fun workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
They could charge exhorbitant fees for full "security" auditing of software before signing it so that Office et. al. can run on it ("We have to protect the security of these key applications.").
This would require Codeweavers to pay up for each distro that they support, paying MS to audit the security of the product. And they in theory would require new audits for each revision. Hell, they could charge separate fees for different build options.
Re:What are the Microsoft licensing requirements? (Score:3, Interesting)
And since licences are not signed by the buyer, the buyer has no legal obligation to obey them.
Re:What are the Microsoft licensing requirements? (Score:2)
MS itself knows that to prevent this would be suicide, and would only lend credibility to the idead that one company should not be in control of both the OS software and the office applications.
-Adam
Re:What are the Microsoft licensing requirements? (Score:2)
The way I'm reading it is that the software is running (and therefore distrubuted) ONLY on the server. The clients simply are thin display programs that do not actually run any of the software themselves.
Did I miss something here?
Re:What are the Microsoft licensing requirements? (Score:2)
Re:What are the Microsoft licensing requirements? (Score:3, Interesting)
Therefore, if you have 100 devices (not users) in your office, be they full blown PCs or thin clients, and at some point each one of them will have a user running Office on it, then you need a license for Office. It doesn't matter if only 2 devices are running Office at any given moment. It matters how many devices ultimately have used Office.
What Codeweavers allows is concurrent licensing. Which means that if you only have 2 devices using Office via Codeweavers at any given time, you only need 2 licenses of Codeweavers. If 25 devices are using it at the same time, you need 25. But you still need 100 licenses of MS Office itself.
Microsofts lack of concurrent licensing is a REAL drag.
The solution that Codweavers is trying to replace is Windows 2000 + Client Access Licenses + Terminal Server Client Access Licenses + Citrix Concurrent Licenses+Office Licenses per device. For 100 devices, but only 25 concurrent, the costs are roughly: 1000+3000+10000+3500+42500= 60000.
Codeweavers offers Codeweavers Server + 25 Concurrent Licenses + Offices Licenses per device. Or: 1195+1185+42500= 44880.
The savings are not insignificant, but not all that great. Especially when you consider that Codeweavers only runs a limited subset of Win32 applications, and not 100% on any. The Windows + Citrix solution runs all applications that could be run on a regular Windows 2000 desktop. Much more versatile.
That said, if you are seeking to move off of Microsoft products Codeweavers is providing a valuable intermediate step in that transition.
Buy software, then license terms are irrelevant (Score:2)
Win4Lin and VMWare (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Win4Lin and VMWare (Score:4, Informative)
There's a big difference. This is meant for an office network where multiple people will be running apps like Word simultaneously from the same server.
Re:Win4Lin and VMWare (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, other than the fact that all the text/labels/menus etc would be antialiased, I don't think you'd be able to tell it was running remotely on a Linux server at all.
Oh, except clippy wouldn't work. Rejoice! I can see the headlines now - Clippy dies in wave of corporate cost cutting.
Re:Win4Lin and VMWare (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Win4Lin and VMWare (Score:2)
The CodeWeavers solution looks like it simply runs the Windows executable, and can keep the resource usage much smaller. This in turn allows many more applications to run on a standard server.
the phrase "the most delicious irony"... (Score:4, Funny)
Confused (Score:5, Funny)
I'm so confused. Can't they all just wear black hats or white hats so I know which ones are the bad guys and which are the good guys?
Re:Confused (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Confused (Score:2)
So in that respect, you shouldn't be happy cause the GI Joes won, but rather because you have new found choice. A more granular choice than having a dual boot system, or VMWare running, or just having no choice at all and being on a single platform all the time.
Re:Confused (Score:2)
Oh, you weren't singing?
Re:Confused (Score:3, Interesting)
This will make it easier to get Linux into MSFT only shops, since it is in the guise of a Citrix Server. Once in the door, it should prove to be a good business descision, which means the PHBs will start to see Linux in a positive light. It's all about getting inside the walls of Fort Redmond, and then letting the troops out to fight.
Get it?
Soko
Full-blown Beats a Viewer (Score:2, Interesting)
Crossover Office Rocks! (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically I was not allowed to pop/imap into the exchange 5.5 server and have been running vmware with win2k/office. vmware is great however running win2k under linux was terribly slow. Now I simply run outlook under linux/crossover and life is good. Outlook under Linux is VERY fast!
I strongly recommend their products. I'll be keeping an eye on them in the future.
Re:Crossover Office Rocks! (Score:5, Informative)
If they install Outlook Web Access, you could also use Outlook Grabber [warande.net]. Yes, I wrote it, yes, I am plugging it real hard now, but at least it's Free(tm).
</plug> When I have time, I'll try porting it to Exchange 2000 web access, that's a bit different in layout unfortunately
From the title... (Score:3, Funny)
Misspelling in the writeup... (Score:5, Funny)
Right there... irony. The correct spelling is soul-crushing lawsuit.
so how is this different from remote X + wine? (Score:4, Interesting)
Ie, couldn't Solaris users always ssh/telnet to a linux machine configured to use wine and run an app with the display set back to the thinclient or ssh-X forwarding?
I know I've done this linux->linux.
someone enlighten me?
Re:so how is this different from remote X + wine? (Score:5, Informative)
If you wanted, you could set this up using only WineHQ builds and some shell scripts - as is often the way, it comes down to time vs money.
Re:so how is this different from remote X + wine? (Score:2)
I've found I get much better results with CrossOver than WineHQ, even though they are largely the same. Hopefully soon WineHQ will have caught up, but they are currently focussed on technical targets.
Licensing, not enough. (Score:5, Informative)
I suspect that it is using the X-11 approach and this will NOT impact the likes of Citrix. Citrix provides a great deal of functionality beyond simple terminal services. The management tools and the ability to publish applications are unrivaled and any administrator who has used them is not going to easily part with them. But, perhaps the biggest distinction is that Citrix uses a TINY amount of bandwidth when compared to X-11 or VNC. Whereas Citrix ICA protocol can work very nicely at 20Kbps VNC can easily use a couple of hundred Kbps and X-11 can go over 10Mbps for even basic applications.
Sure a Citrix implementation costs a fortune, mostly due to the fact that Microsoft requires three different licenses including a Windows license, a Terminal Server license and then Terminal Server CALs. It's damn expensive but, companies that really need that kind of functionality can easily afford it and once it's in, they won't part with it.
Re:Licensing, not enough. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Licensing, not enough. (Score:2)
Not that it's terribly relevant to the topic. This was probably an easy edition to Codeweavers' product line. The hard part was getting Office running stably. This seems to be bundling their Crossover Office with a version of LTSP.
Re:Licensing, not enough. (Score:2)
Umm, only on Windows. For Unix, you can configure it for multiple users in a number of ways.
You can either:
Give each user their own port, where their VNC server is running. This will keep each user's desktop running in the background all the time.
OR
Have the VNC server dynamically assign ports, and give users an XDM screen. This will work like Citrix or like a local log-in. They connect, log-in at XDM, get their desktop. Everything their desktop session is closed when they disconnect.
Re:Licensing, not enough. (Score:2)
I was usingCitrix on my last project for access to the standard office facilities (MS Office, Lotus Notes, etc). It was slow and buggy. Perhaps we didn't have enough server power, but this seemed like skewed logic as the computers we were issued with were 1.6GHz Dells with Win2K pro.
VNC was not intended as a multiuser tool. There are ways to set up extra console sessions but they tend to be awkward hacks because of the absence of suitable documentation for Win. OTOH, I can understand Microsoft's reticence to hand out such documentation as running a single VNC session back to my WIndows box is well within the Windows licence. Running two users back to a Windows box requires licensing.
Re:Licensing, not enough. (Score:2)
crossover office costs about $1000 for a server license, plus about $40-$47 per user (not including Office licenses.) not bad, considering that to do a Citrix implementation you need:
- Citrix base server license pack
- per concurrent user citrix user license
- NON CONCURRENT windows 2000 TSCAL per connecting device (this one gets lots of people and it's enforced by the server)
- windows 2000 server license
- office license per user
- somewhat savvy citrix geek to install it all and make sure your other apps work in a multi user environment. but the average biz would probably need a linux geek to setup crossover anyway, so it's sort of a wash on this point.
but for all that, a Citrix setup gets you pretty good print support (what happens when Joe User hits the print button while on crossover office?), low bandwidth ICA protocol, client drive mapping, client com port/parallel port mapping, and for extra bucks per user, pretty slick load balancing.places that skip the citrix bit and go with bare w2k terminal services (not recommended if you have the means) might want to look at this instead, since bare 2k term servers have most of the same problems.
Re:Licensing, not enough. (Score:2)
Uh, a piece of paper comes out of the printer? Or a bunch of pieces, depending on how long the document is.
-BrentRe:Licensing, not enough. (Score:3, Interesting)
What kind of a reply is this?
in the absence of other configurationI installed Windows XP and "in the absence of other configuration", when I tried to print it ust gave me an error. Naturally, configuration is important, that's why companies hire adminsitrators.
So if your cubicle is on the 8th floor and the server is in the basement, you have some work to do as an administrator, auto setting default print queues based on users.Surprise! The administrator supporting all those fat clients running Windows has some work to do to get those computers printing to the nearest printer.
The problem becomes more difficult when the printer type is unknown in advance (i.e. telecommuting users connecting from their home pc).When I log onto Windows Terminal Server, does it know where I am?
More specifically, what if the home user has a Qwezbit SuckJet 9000 Win-Printer attached to their parallel port, and there's no linux driver?THE COMPANY SENT HOME A LINUX DESKTOP AND A WINDOWS PRINTER?!?!!?!??? (oh, excuse me, i got a little excited there) Now what would possess a company to do that?
I think you are grasping at a straw. Companies hire adminstrators to take care of their companies. The adminstrators have configuration to do whether it's on 2000 fat clients, or 2 servers. The difference is which solution is easier to configure and support.
-BrentRe:Licensing, not enough. (Score:2)
Indeed X is a bandwidth hog, but I am not sure about the 10mbs your are talking about, this seems way to much to me.Anyway there is LBX (Low Bandwidth X) which uses compression and caching through a proxy, it's said to be competitive with ICA in the bandwidth field : http://www.paulandlesley.org/faqs/LBX-HOWTO.html
Re:Licensing, not enough. (Score:2)
Re:Licensing, not enough. (Score:2)
I have come across a VNC distribution that allows single-applications to be published.
Not so. I know I have had TightVNC operating nearly as bandwidth-effeciently as Citrix. Supposedly RealVNC has even better compression with less CPU usage, but I haven't yet tried it.
The trick is only that you need to do some trial and error to figure out which VNC settings work the best, while Citrix doesn't give you any choices. RealVNC claims to automatically adjust the settings for your connection, but, again, I haven't yet tried it out; it may still require some adjustments.
Congrats ???? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why continue to chase Microsofts tail when better solutions could be developed that dont involve thier products at all.
I am not flaming
Congrats none the less
Cool...but, (Score:4, Insightful)
ER
Is it good on bandwidth tho... (Score:2)
I think they intercept the windows GUI functions at a lower API than something like pcanywhere.
Does this match the speed? If it's using XWindows, probably not.
Re:Is it good on bandwidth tho... (Score:2)
Re:Is it good on bandwidth tho... (Score:3, Informative)
And I think it my even have been better than that... I think it may have been more like, "Draw a listbox at x,y with width w,h with these items in it", because you saw VERY little network traffic after a dialog was shown. But I have no idea how it actually worked.
Diff's btw this and Wine; and Solaris platforms (Score:5, Informative)
This product is used to serve up (via X) MS Office apps to multiple clients, as has been possible for years using a Windows Server and running MS Office over the network, a standard procedure in many companies. This makes it easy to upgrade, apply service packs, etc, as all you have to do is update 1 copy on the server, rather than all users copies on their workstations.
This product executes the Office app under wine on x86 Linux, and sends it to any given X server. Presumably, you could run a Win32 PC X server and run MS Office from an x86 Linux server to a Windows desktop, although, this would obviously be somewhat counterproductive.
Since wine only runs on Linux (and FreeBSD, to some extent) on x86 processors, as mentioned in FAQ #3 [winehq.org] on the wine development site, this means that users of Solaris, LinuxPPC, sparc Linux, and other commercial UNIX users were left out in the cold as far as being able to run MS Office. Now, however, you simply need to set up a server with this product, install MS Office, and then setup accounts, etc. Users can simply run the program, and Word, et. al. will appear as a regular window on their X desktop.
PS. The level of what works/what doesn't varies a little among the Office family; Word & Excel are best, PPT/Access don't run as well, the last I checked. IE & Outlook are supposed to be great. (at least as great as said products can be
What is the purpose of this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What is the purpose of this? (Score:2)
More to the point what is the cost of maintaining a building full of Windows PCs? X terminals have no moving parts and when they break you send a monkey to replace the defective unit in the trash and replace it with a new X terminal. Instead of sending a computer technician (with years of experience mucking around in the registry) to fix a broken PC you send a janitor. Want to upgrade to a new version of your Office suite. Instead of spending a month walking around with CDs in hand you simply pop your CD in the server and 25 minutes later you are done.
With thin clients you end up with precisely one machine to administer. The Crossover client allows you to have a single server that serves up both Linux applications, but also critical Windows applications like MS Word. Such a beast would be perfect for organizations looking at switching over to Linux-based thin clients over the long term, as it would allow their users to access both Linux and Windows applications easily.
Re:What is the purpose of this? (Score:2)
PCs have a lot of inertia. IT managers know how they work, and they have a handle on how much they cost. Microsoft has been a safe choice for years, and the newer versions of Windows and Office work well enough that there is little reason to rock the boat.
However, with Microsoft's new licensing scheme, and a down economy there are plenty of places that are looking at lowering the cost of their IT installations. People complained when organizations switched away from Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect too, but organizations still did it.
How it works? (Score:2)
You have a beefy linux server and various x-windows box in your office.
You install your _legal_ MS office on your Linux server using codeweavers software.
Then your x-windows boxes can connect to your linux server to get an office window.
So do you need a license of office for ever current user. Or would one license feed 10/100/1000 people?
Thanks.
Quick TCO comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
Since Citrix is commonly used in conjunction with Windows clients to run remote programs, this program being Microsoft Office on some occasions, replacing Citrix with a cheaper solution and replacing the Windows clients with Linux (free), you can (duh) save money.
Lets look at a simple setup, where you have a Citrix (the XP edition, not the MetaFrame 1.8, which has a much higher intitial cost but is cheaper to add licenses too - $4,900 for the English, Win2k in fact) server providing access to Office 2000 to the type of crap systems you see on secretary workstations and library consoles around the nation: a Windows 95/98 machine with 64 megs of RAM and a 2.4 gig hard drive. A Citrix "starter" (5 licenses) runs you about $1900 bucks. The Office license is like $300-$400. The Windows client is dirt cheap or "paid for", but will still find a way to consume tech support time somehow. Oh, don't forget the cost of the Windows or Unix license for the server itself.
On the other hand, the CrossOver Office server is $1,195. With a Linux workstation and a Linux server, you dump the cost of the Microsoft licenses and can make the workstation into a true, no hassle thin client. You can then expand this equation: A 25 user licenses + Citrix runs you $5800-$8000, depending on the version. CrossOver Office would be $2,380 with 25 user licenses.
Re:Quick TCO comparison (Score:2, Interesting)
The talk here is comparing the solution to Citrix, Microsoft RDP (terminal server) is a better comparison as it has similar network charastics to X11.
To compare for 25 users the costs are,
Microsoft + Citrix $15,700
Microsoft $11,000
Linux + Crossover $10,000
The main cost is Office for all solutions: $7500, although for the Citrix solution $4800 is hefty as well.
The Microsoft RDP protocol is marginally better than X11 according to general consensus. However it is not really supported for Dial-up use (No personal experience with X over dialup). The Citrix protocol (ICA) is very efficient and will work over a v.90 modem (atleast for Real video
CrossOver office will be marginally cheaper than the RDP solution and will support the service packs, but it needs modification to do so (Currently supports SP3 for Office 2K.)
Conclusion:
If you need dialup connectivity, you fork out for Citrix. Period. Otherwise, the diffrence between the Microsoft and Cross solutions are negligable from a cost standpoint.
If you use no Microsoft OS on the clients you can save $2500 more (at $100/client), and if you point your MS clients at your Cross server you can add $500 for X clients (about $20/ client). Additionally, if you buy a "official server" Linux you will add a few hundred more.
In either case, you could just get old ICA or X terminals (no moving parts) for $70/each and skip allmost all client maintance costs.
Costs: (from CDW)
Office:
25x$300= 7500 for office licenses (each machine that is going to "use locally or remotely" will need a license)Since Cross does not support Access, I am using the standard version.
Microsoft Adv server 25/licenses $3400
Metaframe Xps +5 license $1500
20 more Citrix licenses $3300
Total ~= $7500 for Office + $8200 MS+Citrix
Cross over office:
$1200 for the server software
$1200 for the 25 user license pack
$7500 for office
This solution allows you to save nearly $6000 versus Citrix, but only $1000 vs RDP.
Before you say 'so what' (Score:2)
It ill allow you to run windows applications ( and of course X apps too ) on lower power machines that could not normally handle this.
All the power is on the server.
This is the whole concept/beauty of client/server type setups, Reducing the resource requirements of the clients. Plus you get centralized management and support.
While its true you will still need application licenses, you do save the cost of terminal server.
Of course it wont beat ICA for its tiny footprint and bandwidth savings, but in the proper environment this will still do wonders. Assuming of course, that the apps you need will work properly under Wine..
Pragmatism vs. Idealism (Score:4, Insightful)
The ideal is to kick out all M$ proprietary licenses and go with strictly OSS applications. The reality is that most corporations cannot stomach the instant switchover. Sure, OpenOffice (and others) do a pretty good job of pulling up office docs. The're just not perfect, especially on a heavily scripted M$ environment. So, what's the answer?
Bring out Linux desktops that can run the native Linux apps and connect to the Crossover Server to get to the old proprietary apps. This puts Linux on the desktop immediately but allows them to go through the slow migration that is necessary to keep their businesses in operation!
Idealism takes time. The only way to be a true idealist is to first be a pragmatist. Patients and good innovation will win the day!
Questions (Score:2)
Does someone know where a list of apps is that will run better on their software than on WINE?
Re:Questions (Score:2)
This can already be done! (Score:2)
So, I ssh -x into my "server" which has WINE and Lotus Notes from my FreeBSD box running XFree86-4, and export my Lotus Notes interface with no problems.
What does CodeWeavers offer that this setup does not?
Re:You still need an office license for every clie (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You still need an office license for every clie (Score:2)
The CrossOver page lists a price of $1,195 for the server software, plus $1,185 for a 25-client license.
Is it just me, or does that not seem like enormous savings with CrossOver? What did I miss?
Not enough Licenses (Score:3, Informative)
Windows 2000 Server License
Windows 2000 File & Print Client Access License (per client)
Windows 2000 Terminal Server License
Terminal Server Client Access License (per client machine, non-concurrent)
Citrix Server Client Access License (per concurrent user)
Application License (per concurrent terminal session)
Re:You still need an office license for every clie (Score:5, Insightful)
1 - use the Office licenses you already have in perpetuity. No Licensing 6.0 style "software as a service" pay-me-now-and-pay-me-later is needed - it is, after all, Linux.
2 - pool the Office licenses you have, making better use of a valuable resource. Say you have 100 employees and 70 Office licenses. You can pool those 70 licenses on Crossover Office Server, and likely keep every one of your users happy. Not everyone has Word/Excel/Access open all of the time, so it makes very good sense to pool them in this way.
Soko
Re:You still need an office license for every clie (Score:2)
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. This Section of the EULA describes Your general rights to install and use the Software Product The license rights described in this Section are subject to all other terms and conditions of this EULA.
General License Grant to Install and Use Software Product. You may install and use one copy of the Software Product on a single computer, device, workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic or analog device ("Device"). You may make a second copy of the Software Product and install it on a portable Device for the exclusive use of the person who is the primary user of the first copy of the Software Product. A license for the Software Product may not be shared. Alternative License Grant for Storage/Network Use. As an alternative to the rights granted in the previous section, You may install a copy of the Software Product on one storage Device, such as a network server, and allow individuals within Your business or enterprise to access and use the Software Product from other Devices over a private network, provided that You acquire and dedicate a license for the storage Device upon which the Software Product is installed and each separate Device from which the Software Product is accessed and used. A license for the Software Product may not be used concurrently on different Devices.
So yes, you need licenses for everything. The full text of this and other MS EULAs can be found here [clendons.co.nz].
Re:so what (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong.
As quoted somewhere above, from Codeweaver's licensing FAQ [codeweavers.com]:
"Q. Can Microsoft prevent CodeWeaver's customers from running Microsoft applications on Linux?
A. No. Microsoft's end-user licenses do not preclude operating their applications under other operating systems. Were Microsoft to attempt to prohibit such usage, by requiring that Microsoft products be run only on the Windows OS, they would be in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Sherman Act precludes making the usage of a non-monopoly product dependent on the purchase of a monopoly product. Microsoft has been convicted of monopolist practices under the Sherman Act regarding their operating systems. As a result, they cannot legally make Microsoft Office dependent on having a Windows OS license."
Re:Can't forget (Score:2)
Re:Can't forget (Score:2)
Jeez, if you want to get picky, *n?x had the "display-apps-remotely-on-thin-clients" well before Windows did. Ever heard of X?
But no, we have to be all snobbish and point out that some commercial product did a "me-too" product and a Free project was used to make a "me-too-too" product. Fine.
Just don't expect people like me to give you a high-five when you say that sort of thing to people like my boss, who doesn't take kindly to the patronizing tone. It tells people like me that you really don't know what's going on, and are relying on bravado to get you through life.
AC, I think you were right on the money when you said "twit." :-D
Poorly written, too (Score:2)