Slashdot Mirror
Codeweavers Releases Crossover Office
rleyton writes "Codeweavers have just announced Crossover Office, a Wine derivitive which allows MS-Office 97 & 2000 products as well as Lotus Notes to run without a Windows OS License. If it's as cool as the Crossover plugin product, then it could mean a significant step forward in Wine's progress." NewsForge got hold of a final beta copy a couple of days ago and has a Crossover Office review up already, and DesktopLinux.com has one too. This looks pretty cool, yes.
Now if a PHB tells you can't run Linux, because you need Office - tell him you'll save money by not needing a Windows license, and call still use Office.
Bias report: I am a registered (bought and paid for) licensee of the Crossover plugin. Love watching Quicktime and even tolerate Windows Media Player. I am pleased to see these folks doggedly banging away at WINE and, concurrently, identifying specific market niches that can help them bring in a few dollars.
I'm not likely to buy this one because I don't need MS Office and $55 will buy some things I do want or need...
however...
Boy, do I hope this works as well as the plugin.
Office is a major stumbling block for many people (not that it should be, just is).
More to the point: If they can run Office well enough to be worth the trouble, how much more software is just around the bend?
The reasons to resist are melting, my pretty, melting, melting...
Legal case for what? for allowing you to use Office 2000 under Linux without Windows? it's YOU that signs that EULA, not codeweavers.
Do you see MS start chasing after thousands of customers who will buy this? I hardly think so. Its better for MS since you still need to have Office 97 or 2000...
Hetz (Heunique)
While this product is probably useful to the geek Linux lover who also needs to use Office, I fail to see how this is going to make corporate users switch over to Linux. I also fail to see how this is reducing the need for Microsoft software.
Yeah, sure, you're getting rid of the Windows license...a savings of $50 or so in the OEM world. But you're still giving money to Uncle Bill for Office itself...and even in an OEM atmosphere I bet Office is a damned sight more than $50.
Making cute nick-nacks that will run Microsoft's office suite on another OS doesn't reduce Microsoft's grip on the desktop what so ever. Only a native office suite that is not purchased from Microsoft will make that difference on Microsoft's bottom line.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Erm... Why would Microsoft be upset by this? If the user has paid for their copy of Office they still get their money. If it's being pirated, then it's no different than if it was pirated on the Windows box.
Sure they'll lose out on some converts for whom the only block for going to Linux was Office. However, Microsoft does gain a new platform on which their software runs and which they don't have to officially support.
I'm interested in this OEM EULA that requires the end user to upgrade in a few years, or even gives MS the power to demand the end user do anything. Can you drop me a URL with that clause please?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Interesting point, but you neglect to recognize the fact that Office is written by MS. Most every non-MS written app that can run in Win95 I've been able to get to work in wine with not much of a headache. DirectX is a little shaky still, but aside from that...
The thing about MS applications is that they have full access to the APIs, even features that may not have been documented for some reason or another. It is hard for a project like wine to create a environment when there might be API calls to functions that aren't documented outside of MS. All this said, I have never tried Office 2000 under wine, (don't have it) but Office 97 seems to work under wine...
I would say wine is an exceptionally successful project considering the scope of the problem they have decided to address.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
If I was a large company converting to Linux, the initial step wouldn't be forking out an extra $50 or so for each machine to get the Codeweavers plugin. Your first step would be to shift office environments to one that is cross platform and moving all your file formats to that product.
Oh, and FYI, the price of Windows drops as well with large orders. In essence you save no money at all even if you can manage to get PCs without Windows licenses.
Touting "security" and "stability" and then running MS Office on top of a hacked up Wine implementation really smacks of hypocrasy to me. I'd be willing to bet that MS Office + Windows is a lot more stable than MS Office + Codeweavers + Linux.
In the end, I can see the need for maybe one copy of the Codeweavers Office product to be put on a box somewhere that people can run X Servers from and convert any incoming Office documents to whatever native format they are using. The "buy it for each desktop" argument just makes no sense.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Now I've converted a bunch of people to linux over the years, and ran linux as my main desktop for several years. But about a year ago I had to switch to Win2k. Why? Because of Office, or more specifically Outlook. I need full compatability and OWA(web access) does not always cut it. I also need to be able to send and receive word and excel docs EXACTLY as they come to me. There are no native linux products which do this perfectly. There are always formatting issues etc etc. Now with this plugin I have the potential to switch back for what I consider to be a minor cost. Considering my distro is free $50 is not much to pay. So in conclusion I'm very excited and looking forward goes back to linux full time.
BTW one thing to keep in mind is that if they can get Office running other apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Autocad etc can't be far behind. Yes native is better, but native is not coming anytime soon from companies like Adobe. So I say full steam ahead for wine.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
On the other had wine has to emulate the huge bloted windows API. Several orders of magnitude more complex than the pc bios.
I think where open source is better than closed source it is in finding developers that *care*. However if what you need is hundreds of developers to hack on an API - money talks. Hence wine struggles.
DWR is Ajax for Java
One difference is that an errant Windows app can, and does, hang the whole system whereas errant Linux apps rarely crash or hang the system (X maybe but not the whole system.)
While I mostly agree with you, there is one silver bullet you're missing...
Even though Office on Wine is likely to be less stable than Office on Windows, Office on Wine will have a much harder time crashing more than the application when it goes down. ie., Office on Wine may crash the application more, but it should crash the OS much less.
I totally agree on both counts. Steve Ballmer has already stated that every Windows app will eventually be re-written to run in the .NET framework. And I certainly don't trust that .NET will be forever platform independant. In fact they only submitted a small portion to the standards committee. So support for the Win32 api will eventually be a moot point.
And your second point takes the words right out of my mouth as I was reading the article. I think as soon as the monopoly trials are over they will have enough wiggle room to put a requirement into the license for Office that it must run on Windows.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'd like to see a comparison of stability between, say, "Office 2000 running on Windows 2000" and "Office 2000 running on Crossover on (whatever)". I don't know if it would turn out the way you think (despite Linux being more stable in general).
I'll tell you about it when I try it out...but you shouldn't just assume that it's going to be less stable than running it on Windows (that shows a definite bias). Codeweavers have done a great job with Crossover Plugin - I have yet to have either Quicktime or Windows Media Player crash on me. Not once.
The other consideration is future. Many businesses spend much more than $55/desktop to keep current with the latest version of Office. Is Crossover going to work for the next version?
That's an interesting question, though. Why do businesses need to buy new versions of Office? Do their needs change that much? What about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" The problem is that such an approach isn't ideal for keeping Microsoft's revenue stream at a regular level, so MS has developed an elaborate swindle: they put out new version of Office that are almost compatible with preceding ones, but add new features that aren't essential. They could very well implement these new features as plugins, but they don't, therefore forcing people to get the new version. Now, if other people want to be 100% compatible, they'll have to upgrade too, and so on. To me, Office 2000 is more than enough for a company. The Linux/Crossover/Office solution seems like a good way for a business to get out of the Microsoft trap...Anyway, I'll try it tonight and see.
Reminder: find a new sig
You brought up a good point and one I'm sure Microsoft would not want to see in the press.
You mention the $50 an OEM might pay but there is much more. Keeping MS Windows running isn't cheap and being forced to upgrade the OS and MS apps every 1.5 years doesn't help either. Let's not forget those wonderful security features Microsoft has built into MS Windows for you. That's right, you should include the cost for that virus software too. And that only catches the virus after you've been infected since MS Windows gets infected so quickly. I think it was estimated that over $10 billion dollars were lost do to MS Windows virus infections over the last couple of years. Keeping that registry fixed up isn't cheap either.
Keeping a business running on MS Windows is like keeping your car running by giving a crocked neighborhood mechanic your checkbook. You start it up and it's gonna cost ya....
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Codeweavers to release a package that allows us to run the key Adobe and Macromedia apps quickly and perfectly under Linux, and then the circle is complete; there will be absolutely no reason for us (in particular) to ever boot into Windoze again.
It would be more than useful also, for them to quickly address the problem of font control under Linux; this means creating an Adobe Type Manager® clone. Then, we will be able to gleefully work uninterupted for days on end.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
People don't change to Linux because it brings too many changes. You have to adapt everything starting from e-mail, documents and ending at any special apps you may run on Windows.
If this product lets you still use Office and even run all those special apps, a change to Linux becomes a set of small changes. Change the OS first. Then gradually change more during months or years.
If you think the Gimp has "all the same capabilities" as Photoshop, you've obviously never been a serious Photoshop user.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
So how quickly will Microsoft update its licenses requiring that Office only be run on Windows OS or release versions with undocumented 'features' that require files only found on the latest and greatest Windows OS.