CodeWeavers Release Server Version Of CrossOver

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.""

Comments

Can't forget

[unterderbrucke]

"previously unreachable platforms like Solaris/SPARC"

What about Linux?

Re:Can't forget

[pr0c]

Its already been available to linux for quite some time. This has been done with the regular version rather than the server version.

Re:Can't forget

[Strog]

Codweavers, WINE, etc. were available to local Linux installs already on x86. This would give terminal capabilities so anything capable of being a terminal client to run it.

or are you refering to Linux on Sparc?

Re:Can't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very important that Linux companys earn money to fund development. So ask your boss to buy you some licenses as a christmas present...

Re:Can't forget

[cscx]

You could, however, use Citrix ICA on Linux.

Re:Can't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such a friggin twit. People are getting tired of seeing you in the middle of Free software discussions trying to piss on everyone's campfire. "Oh, but look, this isn't so great because you can already to this with Windows.." Many people do this sort of thing and it's understandable, but your consistency and lack of understanding of free software make you worty of flogging. Jackass. You won't just leave it at you not agreeing with others. You wanna get up in everyone's face and argue about it. Fine.

In case you didn't know, with the crossover setup you do no have to buy Windows licenses (which are $200 for Win2kpro). For offices who absolutely must use office but would like to save money by replacing windows with Linux (something which many people are companies are doing now, regardless of what you think about it), this solution is by far the most cost effective solution available today. You don't need to buy Windows licenses. Period. All you need to purchase is are the crossover license and the licenses for whatever applications you want to run. For people wanting to move to Linux, this is a very attractive offering. We could never afford a WTS setup here where I work, nor a Citix setup, but this offering now has me thinking.

Oh, and I'm ordering you (moderator) to mod this post down because I called him a twit. Thanks.

Re:Can't forget

[Enahs]

For once, I'll agree with an AC.

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

CodeWeavers, yeah!

[Noodleroni]

CodeWeavers makes some neat stuff. I've even got my boss to want to try out the server version when it came out. The only problem is that it doesn't support QuickBooks, which is a critical function where I work. :-( We'll see what happens.

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[jmu1]

It's on the way... I've a business which is looking to replace windows desktops with GNU/Linux thin clients in small businesses. Quickbooks has been a sticker... I'm very glad that server crossover is out. I've been waiting for this for months!

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[IamTheRealMike]

According to this and discussion seen lately on the mailing lists, it seems QuickBooks support is fairly close now. Let's hope so shall we?

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[antirename]

I think if you check the page he links to it is a "faculty/staff" page. It's more likely that he's doing some consulting on the side. I'd mod you down for being rude, but I'm out of points. Go GSU!

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[Idaho]

Sorry to say it, but I would not have business relations with you if you can't write in english.

Good for you, but you are assuming that this guy lives in an English-speaking country and would therefore even want to do business with you. The world is bigger than just the USA, you know...

However, if your assumption turns out to be true, I agree :)

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Language Nazi alert! You, sir, are a snobbish asshole.

What type of business relations? Do you give English tests before you sell products to people? Or do you only require proper English from businesses that you purchase from? What a load of shit! Although I would like to point out to you that English should be capitalized, maybe you should ostracize yourself from any future business relations. The only excuse I can think of for you is that your mother had relations with her cousins. (Yes, I mean cousins plural.)

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am quite disturbed by the lack of reading skills I find sometimes on Slashdot. If you'll look here you'll see someone who does get it. For shame.

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[UncleFluffy]

Sorry to say it, but I would not have business relations with you if you can't write in english. But since the email

"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!

[mark_lybarger]

You should not start sentences with conjunctions.

damn booring sick day. that's just a general guideline, not a "rule" of the language. that's like saying a sentence shouldn't end with a preposition.

"where's the library at?"

"a sentence does not end with a preposition"

"ok. where's the library at, asshole?"

/ i'm not an english major and don't profess to be. i know c, c++, java, etc pretty good. it's pretty silly seeing folks criticize others grammer on a fricking message board.

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

that's just a general guideline, not a "rule" of the language.

Well, that's why he wrote "should not start", instead of "must not start". It's often considered bad style to start a sentence with a conjunction.

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[Dunkirk]

Yeah, but according to this article, do you really want to?

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[UncleFluffy]

Gah. Yeah, normally I don't care. If you'd bothered to check the context, you'd have seen that I was responding to someone else's grammar flame. Bad grammar does bug me, but not as much as hypocrisy - which is what I was really attacking.

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[dJCL]

This plus Cygwin could be interesting. I've been using the rootless version of the Cygwin X-server and a single copy of wine on a Debian box to try this out, and basically there is little difference between running native and running remote. To get it any better, I used the Novell X-server(comes with lan workplace pro) and the apps start to look totally native even when run remotely. With a few more advancements in cygwin, this could lead to a totally free windows app server...

Re:CodeWeavers, yeah!

[jonadab]

> "a sentence does not end with a preposition"
> "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.

Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.""

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?

[IamTheRealMike]

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...

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?

[rmadmin]

Yeah, wait for the next 'Security Patch' to have the updated EULA. Microsoft will probably be changing their licensing very quickly. Which turns it around again and makes it useless. =)

Re:Irony?

[pVoid]

I hope you don't count this as a win

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.

Re:Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Terminal connections are considered "virtual desktops". You still have to license each connection to the Office App via any kind of terminal server.

Re:Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a true lover of fat clients.

It accomplishes a great deal, in fact. It means you can run on a cheap server and centralize administration and not have to keep reinstalling Office because your users broke their configuration. PLUS, users are able to connect to their applications from multiple computers and have their data and applications available the same as their main machines. This enables telecommuting.

The way our IT infrastructure is built today is really really stupid.

Re:Irony?

[sybarite]

Could someone confirm this? This sounds a little too good to be true. I don't think that 50 concurrent Windows Terminal Server users can use 1 license for Office even though it is on the same machine. This has to stand up legally for system integrators to recommend this kind of solution.

Re:Irony?

[r_j_prahad]

Before anybody jumps in to defend Microsoft, this was exactly the same approach Microsoft used several years ago to mop the floor with Novell. Just put an NT box in front of a Netware server, and you only have to pay Novell for one user license.

Given the history of this tactic, it seems amazing that Microsoft would leave the same loophole in their own EULA.

Re:Irony?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not the loop-hole you are looking for. When TSE first came out MS changed the EULA for their applications that run in the thin-client server sided world to concurrent users.True when you are loading office on each desktop computer you have to buy one license per machine. When you use it with the server side application model you need a license for each concurrent user. So for 50 concurrent users you need 50 licenses.

Re:Irony?

[Reziac]

As of the last several M$ seminars I attended, they told us that Office was indeed now licensed per warm body, and sometimes PLUS a lic. per networked machine. (At least, as best the M$ rep could explain it. It's so damn convoluted that he confused himself while making the attempt. Boiled down to trying to collect *both* per seat and per user license money.)

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

> cross platform interoperation . . . is *always* A Good Thing

Not really.

Microsoft Office is more properly named the Secret-Protocol Document Lock-In Virus.

I don't see how it is beneficial to spread a virus to a new platform.

Codeweavers is pretending to be pulling a fast one on Microsoft, but I believe that Microsoft is actually supporting Crossover Office, in order to get Linux users hooked on Microsoft document protocols.

What are the Microsoft licensing requirements?

[burgburgburg]

First off, do they allow this sort of distribution? If so, what sort of a license does one buy?

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?

[Malicious]

If they had realized it was possible, it would have likley already been forbidden

Re:What are the Microsoft licensing requirements?

[Idaho]

First off, do they allow this sort of distribution? If so, what sort of a license does one buy?

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 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'.

Re:What are the Microsoft licensing requirements?

[stienman]

If MS ever tries to prevent people from running their office software on any other OS than MS's own windows OS, the monopoly charges will explode.

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?

[Whispers_in_the_dark]

First off, do they allow this sort of distribution? If so, what sort of a license does one buy?

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?

[aaarrrgggh]

Doesn't Office require a license for every instance? It would be hard to save that much money going this route...

Re:What are the Microsoft licensing requirements?

[master_p]

Is there a state or government law that permits software to be licenced ? if not, then all licences are non-valid. The government should make an official body that validates software licences, otherwise I own the product I purchase.
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?

[Erore]

Microsoft does not allow concurrent licensing of its Office Product no matter how you are running.

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.

Win4Lin and VMWare

[sqrammi]

Aren't Win4Lin and VMWare both already serving up Windows applications (or at least full blown Windows desktops) from a Linux server? Win4Lin has worked nicely for me for quite some time. Sqram! (sqrammi.com)

Re:Win4Lin and VMWare

[Just Some Guy]

No. They are serving up Windows apps from a Linux workstation.

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

[IamTheRealMike]

Yeah, but with those you need a desktop in a window (as far as I'm aware). With Wine it'd appear in a window assuming a rootless X server just like any other program.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a little bit different. VMWare is hardware virtualization, each instance of VMWare running is another virtual machine. Citrix, or Microsoft Terminal Services give us a desktop session off of one machine (not a virtualized/emulated hardware system for each session). Think if PCAnywhere or VNC didn't take control of the physical console, and it's kinda the same idea. I suppose you could try and spawn a new VMWare sessions running VNC everytime someone tried to connect to the server, but this wouldn't be nearly as efficent

Re:Win4Lin and VMWare

[tsetem]

The big difference is that VMWare & Win4Lin emulate the entire machine, and hence need a larger server.

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.

Re:Win4Lin and VMWare

[Anonymous Coward]

VMware, Win4Lin, etc. all require a Windows OS license along with your MS Office license.

That's a big difference. With Wine you don't need to buy Windows at all.

I do love VMware but I have a MSDN subscription so I have all the OS's I need. I just wish the Linux version looked and played as nicely as the Windows version.

Re:Win4Lin and VMWare

[system5]

Actually, Win4Lin Terminal Server has been on the market for quite some time now, and can serve multiple concurrent Windows desktops from a Linux server to thin clients, web browsers, etc. Also, despite serving an entire Windows session, performance in general is far superior to WINE-based applications because of the amount of hardware virtualization (Windows device drivers run natively on the CPU, but translate to Linux system calls on the fly.) Finally, WTS runs almost all Windows applications that do not require DirectX, you are not restricted to just MS Office.

Re:Win4Lin and VMWare

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys who keep talking about VMWare and Win4Lin are missing a key feature of Wine vs VMWare or Win4Lin.

With Wine, you don't need to have licenses for Windows.

Say it with me, "You don't need to buy Windows if you want to have 100 conncurrent users running an office app."

100 * 100 = $10,000. It's not hard to see how this is going to be very cost effective for Unix shops who want their users to be able to use Office.

I play games under Wine, and the performance is very much acceptable. Word is less demanding that Warcraft 3, so it's not as big an issue as you make it out to be.

Re:Win4Lin and VMWare

[malxau]

That's how Wine normally works.

Now all it CW need is some cool technology to take advantage of X in a way that was never possible with Terminal Server...loadbalancing, very little configuration, better scaling, more portability. Yum.

Finally ...

[NeoEinstein]

... we, the Linux freaks, gonna be able to do all the nasty stuff, we are trying to avoid for years ! kidding It's a nice piece of soft !

the phrase "the most delicious irony"...

[Anonymous Coward]

is usually quickly followed by BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and "we have you now, mr. bond!"

Confused

[jvmatthe]

So we've got non-free software built on top of free software in order to serve up non-free software from a company that wishes to destroy free software.

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

[imr]

Just wait till you find out a picture of kkk men, and you will be even more confused.

Re:Confused

[pVoid]

There aren't good or bad guys. And in the same way, there isn't Good or Bad software. It's all shades.

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

[Soko]

You don't know a Trojan Badger^H^H^H^H^H Horse when you see one, do you?

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

Re:Confused

[enos]

What about those that wear Red Hats?

Re:Confused

[Neon Spiral Injector]

There's only you and me, and we just disagree...

Oh, you weren't singing? :P

Full-blown Beats a Viewer

[Lerxst Pratt]

I used to work in a hospital that deployed several old P-75 computers that couldn't hack an Office install. Instead, they used Word, Excel, and PowerPoint viewers. I can just imagine the productivity they would gain be being able to use full-blown versions of the software on these old dinosaurs instead of the viewers. A very tasty thought indeed!

Crossover Office Rocks!

[u-235-sentinel]

I've been using crossover office for a month and already love it!

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!

[Wizard of OS]

If they install Outlook Web Access, you could also use Outlook Grabber. 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 :(

Re:Crossover Office Rocks!

[Anonymous Coward]

Win2k under VMware is terribly slow??

What kind of machine do you have? My 800 Mhz P3 with 512 RAM runs several VMware Win2k sessions at the same time fine. I've been doing that for years now. I used to run Win2k under VMware on Linux on a 450 Mhz P2! Works great and fast... ????

Maybe you need more memory.

Re:Crossover Office Rocks!

[u-235-sentinel]

I have for awhile however you cannot create private folders. Otherwise the web access was good.

If they decide to move to Exchange 2000 then I would have used other linux products which support Exchange 2000 natively.

Crossover Office only cost $54 for a single license. Compare that to vmware which runs around $200 for a full end user copy. Don't get me wrong. Vmware is a fine product however my windows app needs are simple. I hardly need them thanks to Linux :D

Re:Crossover Office Rocks!

[u-235-sentinel]

I've throught about that. I'm running an IBM thinkpad model T23 with 384 megs ram. I think this is the max it supports.

BTW, if you ran the same apps under crossover office you will see a drastic improvement in performance. Basically you don't have all that overhead (Windoze).

Re:Crossover Office Rocks!

[ignorant_newbie]

It's the memory. when i tried vmware w/ 256M of system ram it was dog slow (apparently cause windows uses so much damn memory) but when i got an extra 256 everything was fine.

I still recommend using wine for everything you can get to work and then vmware as a fallback.

From the title...

[craenor]

I thought this had something to do with John Edward..like maybe if I ran this, my server would channel my old Commodore 64.

Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Try doing some basic research:

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.

Misspelling in the writeup...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Right there... irony. The correct spelling is soul-crushing lawsuit.

so how is this different from remote X + wine?

[smoser]

I read the release, how is this different from just doing remote X and using wine?

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?

[IamTheRealMike]

Yeah, that's basically how it works. CodeWeavers build on top of it to provide easy management etc, and also it's normally easier to get applications working on their stuff as they have app specific hacks, friendlier setup tools and so on.

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?

[Kresh]

Wine doesn't run MS Office (at least not the newest versions).
CrossOver Office does run them.

Casper

Re:so how is this different from remote X + wine?

[smoser]

So if my question was "how is this different than crossover wine + remote X?", the answer would have been just "ease of use".

Thats fine and definitly good for some people, but its not really like its a new development.

Re:so how is this different from remote X + wine?

[IamTheRealMike]

Well, depends on how you define ease of use. Installing IE6 into WineHQ for instance is not just hard, unless you have good knowledge of the Windows registry and are happy manually moving keys around etc, it's simply not possible (there is no reboot logic in WineHQ).

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.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Anonymous Coward]

Note: Every device that connects to a terminal server will need to be properly licensed for its own terminal server usage,...

So just put your clients on a wi-fi network where there is no physical connection and you will be set.

You still need an office license for every client

[Anonymous Coward]

While this is nice, you will still need an Office license for every client, so Microsoft will still be making a lot of money.

"I've" *is* English

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've" is a perfectly valid (although sometimes considered colloquial) contraction of "I have." When expanded the sentence is, "I have a business...." Last I checked, that's English.

now STFU, you clown.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[IamTheRealMike]

Microsoft licenses its desktop application products on a per-computer basis. Per-computer licensing means a valid license must be obtained for each "device" (please see the device definition later in this document) that "runs" (please see the run definition later in this document) the product.

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.

so what

[b17bmbr]

you still pay per seat licenses for office, are locked into closed formats, and by EULA, can't run office XP on anything but windows OS. i'm more impressed by the work at transgaming. getting games onto linux will spur linux desktop growth at home. crossover is a great project, but it does little to promote linux. sorry.

Re:so what

[PhoenixFlare]

and by EULA, can't run office XP on anything but windows OS.

Wrong.

As quoted somewhere above, from Codeweaver's licensing FAQ:

"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."

Another thought....

[IamTheRealMike]

Oh, just thought of something else. CrossOver Office despite the name can run more than Office. Microsoft may well have the terminal server situation locked down, but what about other apps?

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.

Terminal/thin client computing isnt easy.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the licensing isn't this easy either. You still have to pay for a license for EVERY single User that connects for EACH piece of software you are hosting. If you don't believe me ask the BSAA

How the court would define "terminal server"

[yerricde]

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"

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should start a free "OpenSource" model legal service. Why should we have to pay for legal fees? Most of us are just humble programmers who can't afford that kind of advice. So I propose we contact some of our lawyer friends and ask them about setting up a free internet based legal advice. Some of us could provide the space for free on our servers and they could answer legal questions in a public forum. Then we wouldn't have to pay such exhorbitant legal fees! After all, *I* for one have no problem providing my UNIX and VMS knowledge for free. Same goe s for my server space. Bandwidth is cheap these days if you get a cable modem from an ISP with a clue.

Re:How the court would define "terminal server"

[Trolling4Dollars]

That's the problem with you "Nu Conservatives", you never accept the idea that some people just do what they do because they like to. A perfect example is my dentist. He has extremely reasonable prices and does a good job. When I go to him, I don't feel like I'm being ripped off. He's always said that the reason he's a dentist is because he loves the job. He's done some work at the local free clinic for the underpriveleged as well. When my insurance company decided to screw me and leave me without dental coverage because I wasn't in the "right" position at a former job, heis prices were reasonable enough that I could pay them out of pocket. Are you saying that there aren't lawyers out there who would do the same? Although lawyers get a bad rap, the truth is that it's just like any other profession, there are bad eggs and there are good eggs. There are bound to be some who would see this as a chance to exhibit their legal talents in a public forum and gain some fame. After all, money might be one thing to strive for, but what about fame? The only reason I work with computers is because I like to help the underpriveleged people in my community (public library users) get "connected". Any beyond that, there is the small degree of celebrity that I get for being a part of that program. So, screw off if you think that the only motivation to do something is just to make money. You are very likely leading a hollow existence if you believe that.

Re:How the court would define "terminal server"

[eno2001]

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

Licensing, not enough.

[FreeLinux]

The press release does not go into detail about the terminal server features of the new Cross-Over Server. Does it use it's own transport mechanism, or is it relying on X-11?

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.

[hughk]

Citrix is not a particularly fast product. However, much of that can be put down to server power, which it eats alive. Have you ever seen TightVNC? not exactly as fast as Citrix (they don't have the Win source to hack) but it still works well enough to run most things (including both Windows and X). As for X, you seem to have forgotten that it was designed when most people weren't even directly on the 10Mbps LANs, and I have seen four thin-clients on the other side of a 64K LAN bridge working quite nicely.

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[circusnews]

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.

I think your looking at the wrong install base. The regular version of crossover office has never worked well for LTSP/K12LTSP and thin clients. The server version of Crossover office works VERY well with thin clients.

A 25 client version of crossover server is $2380.00. One of these can be placed in a school as an application server serving MSO or other windows only programs, while th rest of the school can be K12LTSP or other LTSP systems and you end up with the best of both worlds.

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[nehril]

right now this might compete on the ultra-low end (i.e. places that could never have afforded Citrix system pricing anyway.)

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.

[old-lady-whispering-]

I believe that VNC connects only one concurrent user at a time to the console and that is useless in application discussed for Crossover and Citrix.

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[bhsx]

There are several hacks to vnc that make it very possible to have more than one client running from the same server. Check the links page at the vnc website for things like VNCProxy and the like.
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.

[Khalid]

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.

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.

[Khalid]

Well sorry, after some googling, it appears that LBX is largly outdated, and didn't achieve the performances it's conceptors were hoping. This brief paper of Keith packard explains why : http://www.xfree86.org/~keithp/talks/lbxpost/paper .html

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[old-lady-whispering-]

yes this is true but you must go through great pains to get a unique desktop for each user and you use up lots of resources doing it. I imagine that you would have to pull the users desktop from an archive and load it into the current environment which would take a long time then when they logged off you would have to clean up the desktop of all user info in preparations for the next person to logon. All in all extremely inefficiant compared to Crossover, Citrix or even bare MS Terminals. I would pay the money it would be well worth it.

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[evilviper]

I believe that VNC connects only one concurrent user at a time to the console and that is useless in application discussed for Crossover and Citrix.

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.

[evilviper]

The management tools and the ability to publish applications are unrivaled

I have come across a VNC distribution that allows single-applications to be published.

Citrix uses a TINY amount of bandwidth when compared to X-11 or VNC.

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.

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[bmetzler]

what happens when Joe User hits the print button while on crossover office?

Uh, a piece of paper comes out of the printer? Or a bunch of pieces, depending on how long the document is.

-Brent

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[malxau]

X just doesn't use that much bandwidth.

But X is becoming more bandwidth-hungry as developers plug in more complex, animated, client-side widget toolkits. I think I've said before that widget toolkits are better off on the X display; but nobody listens to me :)...

Tweaking the settings of your widget toolkits should yield far superior bandwidth results than the defaults in most cases.

Then distribute apps properly.

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[imroy]

There's also the Differential X Protocol Compressor DXPC. I don't know how it compares to LBX, but it's certainly an option to look at.

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[hughk]

The original poster was referring to the slowness of the protocol. I was quite happy with TightVNC and X.

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.

[nehril]

if you are running an app remotely via x11, in the absence of other configuration, you copy will come out on the SERVER's default printer, which may not be anywhere near the actual user. 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. The problem becomes more difficult when the printer type is unknown in advance (i.e. telecommuting users connecting from their home pc). Telecommuting is a BIG reason why businesses go with remote app hosting like this, and why bandwidth usage actually matters.

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? Citrix offers some interesting solutions to all these problems. It's not so easy to make a remote app work EXACTLY like a local app to general users. You have to take that into account when choosing what to use.

Re:Licensing, not enough.

[bmetzler]

What kind of a reply is this?

in the absence of other configuration

I 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.

-Brent

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Strog]

There's nothing in there that states physical connection. Wireless connection is still a connection.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[bloosqr]

Yea its not as if thats unprecedented either.. There are other "per eyeball" licenses. Numerical Recipes software for instance has a "single screen" license

Re:You still need an office license for every clie

[FreeLinux]

True, but you don't need a Windows 2000 server license and a Terminal Server license and Terminal Server CALs for every MACHINE that connects to the terminal server. These licenses cost a LOT more than the Office licenses that you'd have to buy as well.

non-monopoly product dependent on monopoly product

[dpilot]

But aren't Windows and Office both monopoly products?

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.

Technicality but...

[sterno]

Basically, are you willing to try to defend that sort of technicality in a court of law? I wouldn't advise it, but IANAL :)

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.

Congrats ????

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I fully appreciate the technical value of thier achievments I fail to see how this lowers my TCO ???? I'll still need to pay MS for the Office Licences and since most MS customers are under volume or site agreemensts this doesn't appear to be any cheaper that running a normal Terminal Server.

Why continue to chase Microsofts tail when better solutions could be developed that dont involve thier products at all.

I am not flaming ... but I think the Linux community (of which I am a proud member) can be a little blinded by thier technical prowess and forget that some of us have to justify the costs to our bosses. If its not a CLEARLY a cheaper solution, then no sale.

Congrats none the less ...

Re:Congrats ????

[linux_warp]

The TCO is lowered because you don't have to pay for a windows server license, terminal server license, and citrix. While you do have to pay for crossover's license, it is significantly cheaper than if you add the above up.

Re:Congrats ????

[Anonymous Coward]

While this may be slightly cheaper from a licencing standpoint, you'll still need linux admins, extra support people to hand-hold users thru all the formatting problems that will arise, and have yet to be addressed by Cross-over. And a roll out plan, which will run the consultancy fees thru the roof.

Like I said before ... give up on trying to chase MS and just develop better solutions. We are in the infancy of corporate desktop computing and a small company could knock MS off the top of the hill with better products, not solutions that depend on a continued reliance on Microsoft.

Microsoft was smart enough to figue this out and handily pushed IBM from the top of that same hill.

Get it?

Re:Congrats ????

[Anonymous Coward]

How about also.. you save money not having to buy Microsoft OS Licences.. you could run Linux (as an example) on your workstations... last I checked (never), there wasn't Windows Terminal Service clients avialible for Linux

DMCA?

[sterno]

Here's an unplesant thought of how they could make it illegal. In the next release of Office, make it dependent on some sort of DRM technology in the Windows operating system. If they did this:

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?

[DickBreath]

Here's an unplesant thought of how they could make it illegal. In the next release of Office, make it dependent on some sort of DRM technology in the Windows operating system.

The DMCA expressly allows reverse engineering for the porpoise of interoperability.

Re:DMCA?

[Anonymous Coward]

You see this, CmdrTaco? Don't waste your time trying to integrate ispell compatibility into Slash code -- the above statement shows that even spell chicken doesn't do any good if the word is used improperly. It doesn't matter if they're non-native speakers or just dumb -- the language is so complex, people can't write proper English grammar.

(It's "purpose" that you're looking for.)

Re:DMCA?

[IamTheRealMike]

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.

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.

Re:DMCA?

[$rtbl_this]

..the porpoise of interoperability

Any relation to the salmon of knowledge? :)

Re:You still need an office license for every clie

[Soko]

Very true - if you need to buy any more licenses, that is. This software will allow you to do two things:

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

[mithras the prophet]

According to this page, it would cost $1000 for Windows 2000 Server, plus $800 for 20 client licenses ($40 per client).

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?

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Strog]

Licensing Microsoft Office in a Windows Terminal Server Environment

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?

Cool...but,

[rindeee]

I will happily continue using SuSE 8.1 running Crossover Office (or just WINE) + TightVNC. I have used it in place of Windows 2000 Terminal Services in two production projects thus far and the customers love it. Don't get me wrong, I like what they have done with server edition as I believe it will appeal to the "enterprise" class customers who feel that money spent equals money well spent. Kudos to the guys at CodeWeavers. Crossover Office is spectacular.

ER

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[4of12]

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.

so how is this helpful?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. neat trick (If they ever really get it to work). But how is this helpful. Does codeweavers allow us to avoid M$ licensing? no. Does codeweavers releive us from proprietary M$ formats? No. Does codeweavers make M$ apps any more reliable? No, it just adds another layer of complexiy. Does codeweavers remove M$'s white-knuckled grip on the app market? no.

Again, neat trick but Codeweavers has it exactly backwards. It is going to be a hard sell to convince anyone to pay MORE than they are already paying for M$ and put up with MORE instability AND have to maintain an additional technical skills just to use a wordprocessor.

Sorry, not close and no cigar. Why not help us be rid of the nasty Windows-only file formats and "pay as you go" licensing and instead help a project like openoffice.org that is promoting open file-formats?

Re:X11

[Drasil]

I don't know about crossover office, but I tried this with crossover plugin and it failed miserably. As a result my kids' computer still runs a M$ OS :(

If there's a way to do it I'd be interested in knowing how.

You must have an office license for every client

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if you read Microsoft's licensing you will see that you must have a separate license for every client that ever runs office, not just for concurrent clients. MS are not idiots.

Is it good on bandwidth tho...

[WPIDalamar]

The GREAT thing about citrix-metaframe is the bandwidth utilization. At my last company we had over 20 clients connecting over a 128k line running apps from a server a state away, and you couldn't really tell it was remote.

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...

[vidarh]

Other way around, AFAIK. Instead of transmitting the changes to the screen pixel by pixel (though compressed), they intercept the Windows GUI functions at a higher level to get the changes in a more abstract form. Think transfer "draw this rectangle at x,y with width w,h" instead of transferring every damn pixel that change. This is essentially what X does as well, except that the X protocol can be quite bandwidth hungry with modern apps unless you run an app in between to do compression and caching of data.

Re:Is it good on bandwidth tho...

[WPIDalamar]

yup.. that's what I meant ... low-level, high-level mixup, silly me.

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.

Re:Is it good on bandwidth tho...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Citrix system intercepts the windowsGUI and sends the pic to the client. It also keeps track of the images that it has allready sent to the client with the effect that the client only gets sent the part of the picture that has changed. (IE: If you are typing a document, only the new stuff gets re-transmitted, the rest of the screen is pulled from client cache).

Citrix has continually improved it's protocol (ICA) and is usable for things like spreadsheets, email, and word-processing down to 10K/s. Non active windows (aka 2nd programs running in seperate instances) check half as often to see if anything has changed, if nothing has they use essentially zero bandwith.

Diff's btw this and Wine; and Solaris platforms

[brycenut]

OK, the difference between using Wine & Codeweavers product is that you're getting a customized version of Wine that specifically WILL run MS Office products. I've played with regular wine, through many incarnations and versions, and never had any real success getting MS Office apps to run. OTOH, I have had great success with Codeweavers workstation product.

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 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 :))

Re:Diff's btw this and Wine; and Solaris platforms

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is that codeweavers aren't giving back to the wine project?

Not enough Licenses

[FreeLinux]

For a Citrix server you need the following licenses:

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:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the Microsoft license is stating that the software will be used legally under their license.

Certainly, when / if Microsoft chooses to they will make a version of Microsoft Office Terminal Edition or the like with licensing terms and prices they see as appropriate (opinions will vary on that one, I imagine).

This is not really a way to use office with less licenses than usual (i.e. against their EULA, I'm sure. They've probably had lawyers and engineers rule out any legal possibility to do so). It IS a way to effectively manage WinTel software installation from a more centralized location. This means not having to install and monitor configurations for hundreds or thousands of employees at their workstations but, rather, from a centralized location. Also it seems more control can be administered by SysAdmins over what settings are chosen and remain in play.

What is the purpose of this?

[Rwfresh2002]

This seems idiotic to me. Interesting endevour.. But what is the purpose? You still have to pay for licenses of office. Now you have to setup all this shit so people can run windows apps on linux "thin clients" ... What does a copy of win98 cost? And a PC to run it and Windows? Is this solution saving you money? Time? It's seems like a very complicated way to open Word documents. rw

Re:What is the purpose of this?

[Jason Earl]

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?

[Rwfresh2002]

I guess everyone will be switching over ASAP. The reasons are obvious. Ofcourse when new versions of Office appear (and they already have) and everyone in the building full of Linux thin clients wants and needs access to the functionality not supported by this solution.. You will just run around to every machine putting a pc with windows shit on it and getting shit from people that "told you what we needed". if this isn't a concern use StarOffice. make you're life even simpler.

Re:What is the purpose of this?

[Jason Earl]

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.

(tm) and (r)

[innocent_white_lamb]

My ghawd. I don't think I've ever seen so many superscripted (tm) and (r) labels in a single paragraph or a single page before.

I suppose it could be worse; one day soon all of that stuff might be littered with "patent pending" and we all know how well the US patent office works.

Why but "Crossover Server"

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the difference because I have WINE runnign on my LTSP server and all my clients can use IE and a number of other DOS programs without some special "Server" version.....Is this like the difference between RedHAt's "Advanced Server" and regular Workstation versions (i.e. No difference at all except the price?

Already exists... NeTraverse Terminal Server

[Anonymous Coward]

That is neat, though it already exists (serving Windows from a *nix server to a client computer running almost any platform, or running a local copy of the software for your single *nix machine)... with the software NeTraverse makes...

Use their Terminal Server Software... I connected to a server in another state over broadband to a cable modem of a computer running it. I opened (on Win2k, incidentally), a terminal client that ran Windows (a different version of windows than I was running on my local machine) from the *nix server.

From there I ran Office, Explorer, and other apps installed on that machine. This was a version of Windows being served from the *nix machine itself (which handles the users and OS serving itself).

Pfft.

[quartz]

Now why exactly would I want to run buggy, bloated, insecure Microsoft shit on my server, and even pay money for the privilege?

How it works?

[Quill_28]

From a quick read this is what I understand.

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.

Re:How it works?

[Anonymous Coward]

One license feeds all.

That's the fantastic loophole.

The reason that it doesn't work with MS Terminal Server is that the Terminal Server comes with a license that states otherwise. MS Office license doesn't make any claims about tying itself to a number of displays or type of machine.

Hence, you can use one license on all your X terminals. Enjoy.

Quick TCO comparison

[mao che minh]

Hmm, maybe this could bring down TCO?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets see,

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.

Re:Quick TCO comparison

[MikeBabcock]

X over dial-up doesn't work too bad if using SSH for compression of the X protocol.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[cscx]

If you think Word is slow and has an "aggravating" user interface, I don't know WHAT you'd say about it's redhead stepchild OpenOffice.

Re:You still need an office license for every clie

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but as I see it, the software is running on
the server, so you only need one license for the
server and none for the 1,000 clients.

Can anyone point me to the clause in the Office
license that precludes remote access to a machine
that is remotely running office?

If I access a windows machine via vnc and use office,
are you saying I need an office license for my vnc
client?

Another fun workaround

[burgburgburg]

With Palladium, they could make the Office code dependent both on the hardware element (on the server) and on the signed, authenticated software for it to be running on.

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:Another fun workaround

[mADASS]

Just let those Redmonters do so. It just creates some more motivation for users and managers to look at the other options they have. I mean seriously, how many users have the newest office installed (legally)?

The purpose is to replace the $&$#@*& expe

[Anonymous Coward]

server in the closet with Linux.
The end users in your corp continue to use
the apps they always have.

Upside is no M$ server licensing
AND
Your users can continue to use the hardware
they have for a lot longer between upgrades.
(seeing as the newer software is on the server now)

But... wtf am I telling YOU this for? All you have
to do is think about it for a minute. *sigh*

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[tzanger]

If you think Word is slow and has an "aggravating" user interface, I don't know WHAT you'd say about it's redhead stepchild OpenOffice.

I use StarOffice every day (which is essentially OO) and it's neither slow nor aggravating. Now its widgets are not in the same locations that Microsoft's Office suite puts them, and that is taking some getting used to, if that is what you mean. But it's not aggravating.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[EllisDees]

From the top of the page you posted:

"This document addresses the most commonly asked questions about licensing Microsoft® Office in a Windows terminal server environment."

Terminal server 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:You still need an office license for every clie

[Strog]

Don't forget to add $2,669 for 20 Terminal Services CALs if your clients aren't Windows 2000 or later. 2000 and later have a Terminal Services CAL built-in.

CrossOver does seem a little pricy since you can basically do this with exporting the display already.

Re:You still need an office license for every clie

[nightsweat]

From the MS Office XP EULA. Right near the top.

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.

Pragmatism vs. Idealism

[RandyF]

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!

Buy software, then license terms are irrelevant

[Sloppy]

The beauty of this approach is that the application software (MS Office) only needs to be installed on one computer. There is no point in trying to get the volume discount associated with a site license (volume discount for qty 1?). Thus, you don't need to buy licenses at all -- just buy a single copy of the software from a retail store and don't open the box until after your vendor has accepted your payment. No EULA, no weird restrictions, just copyright.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wireless" and "connection" are effectively antonyms - you mean logical connection and that same reasoning works the other way - there is nothing in there that states logical connection.

I hate to break it to you

[Anonymous Coward]

but TCO is mostly made up of support, not initial costs. So although this product may cost less than Microsoft Office, if it's more to support, the TCO will be higher in the long run.

Re:I hate to break it to you

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to break it to you, but this does affect support costs.

Solutions like WTS and Citrix solutions DO reduce TCO, but they are so expensive that they only save money for huge organizations with many users. Smaller organizations can't justify spending the kind of money it takes.

Questions

[Quill_28]

I understand they took WINE and added some stuff so that it would run MS Office better. Was the stuff they added specific to MS Office or generic enhancements?

Does someone know where a list of apps is that will run better on their software than on WINE?

Re:Questions

[SoftwareJanitor]

www.codeweavers.com maybe? They list a few other explicitly supported products like Lotus Notes, Quicken, Internet Explorer, Visio and Outlook. They have a partial listing of other packages, as well as a list of those known not to work and some packages listed as unknown.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Sloppy]

That stuff only applies if you license the software. Why would you? Why not just buy a single legal copy, and then take the terms offered by copyright law, instead of making deal with Microsoft for worse terms?

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)

[imadork]

Examples of computers that might run Office on a terminal server include Windows-based workstations, Macintoshes, and UNIX workstations.

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?)

Re:You still need an office license for every clie

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, licenses expire.

The DMCA does present a problem

[Petrox]

What the CodeWeavers license really does is allow the consumer who might be sued by Microsoft to seek (and get) indemnification for all damages due in a civil action to Microsoft from CodeWeavers. The above poster is quite right in pointing out that an invocation of the DMCA would present quite a problem for the CodeWeavers customer. The DMCA is a criminal statute and one can not seek indemnification for criminal acts (one may be still be excused for criminality by means of insanity etc. or justified if your criminal actions were preventing an even greater harm, but these defenses are often difficult to win with).

Re:X11

[np_geek]

You used the wrong product. Crossover plugin is for flash, etc. plugins for your web browser. Crossover Office allows you to install actual apps like Office. I've used both and they are quite impressive. It's real fun when after your Office install, the windows installer wants to reboot the machine and the window just closes for a second. It took something like 5-10 mintues to install Office 2000 and it was up an running. Very nice work on their part.

Exactly - see Palladium

[Anonymous Coward]

Also see noises that Microsoft has been making that Office 11 will lose backwards compatibility with the 9x line "for security reasons". It is a safe bet that they will also break Codeweavers, and then apply their blanket exemption in the DoJ giveaway to not have to tell anyone what they did.

The complete predictability of the move would be hilarious were the implications not so potentially serious for the rest of us.

Terminal Services client for Unix

[mbrubeck]

Say what? Can someone who knows more than I do explain how Unix workstations can run Office?

rdesktop is a free terminal services client for Unix/X11 based platforms.

Poorly written, too

[0x0d0a]

If you look, you'll notice that "Linux" has a "TM" after it *some* of the time, and that the first mention of CrossOver Office has a "TM" and the second an "R".

Or Red Hats...

[kentyman]

If you have a suspicion they might be moving from white to black.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Anonymous Coward]

Wi-fi does not use the laws of physics to establish a connection?

Quick nitpick

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft shit

Should be 'Micro$hit' - it's quicker, to the point, and has the added bonus of a dollar sign - indicating both the greed of Micro$oft (see?) and the cleverness of the poster.

You stupid, cultureless yob.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[TrollBridge]

It's amazing what some people will claim to rationalize/justify theft. I don't care what kind of connection you want to call it: it's pretty obvious that Microsoft is referring to any connection between a terminal and a server where data is exchanged.

Manipulating words won't make the idea any more permissable under that EULA.

This can already be done!

[forsetti]

If your client can run X, then this is already do-able. I run Lotus Notes under Wine, along with a few other windows apps. As long as Wine is configured to allow the Window Manager to manage Wine application windows ("Managed=yes" in ~/.wine/config), the application can be exported using standard X procedures (either ssh -x, or set DISPLAY, xhost, etc).
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:This can already be done!

[MikeBabcock]

I highly recommend X-Win32 -- it works wonderfully as an X server on Windows.

http://www.starnet.com/

Re:The purpose is to replace the $&$#@*& e

[Rwfresh2002]

I think you are telling me in hopes that others will understand and want this as a solution. I don't see this happening. I guess time will tell. "But... wtf am I telling YOU this for? All you have to do is think about it for a minute. *sigh*" if you like it.. sell it. spread the word. Hell implement it in your own office. What's that? You don't use/pay for MSoffice? You intuitively know this is going to save people money though.. and it's better. if all people are doing in your office is banging away on a word processor then make them use StarOffice.. if it's a little more complicated then that then use something that works... What next? Lindows? hahahaha

Quickbooks works

[Anonymous Coward]

and I've been using it on Linux for a couple of years. Support for QB just keeps getting better. It used to be almost impossible to install, but not anymore. The first time I got it to run on wine was with Corel Linux (remember them?). Currently I'm running it on Mandrake with cxoffice.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[blakestah]

Note. Using Crossover is not a Windows Terminal Server environment. At all. Windows Terminal Server is a specifically defined product.

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)

[Strog]

Ok?!?!

Go ahead and connect physically to your application. Wireless networking uses radio waves to make connections to tranfer data. Still seems like connecting to me.

Snippet from EULA Office 2000

Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy of the computer software portion of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on the COMPUTER to allow your other computers to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT over an internal network, and distribute the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to your other computers over an internal network. However, you must acquire and dedicate a license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT for each computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is used or to which it is distributed. A license for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers.

There's enough fuzzy terms to be twisted in here to make any case you want. The problem is that most judges have been backing corporations because they just don't understand.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Anonymous Coward]

> 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.

You have it backwards. As copyrighted material, when it comes to using Office, or any other proprietary software, everything is restricted unless specifically allowed by the license.

Thus, the line you quoted from the FAQ cannot be used to argue that you have additional rights when using non-Microsoft technology.

However, it could be used to argue that, by running Office in a networked environment using a non-Microsoft technology (i.e. Crossover), you are violating the license.

Needed with Xandros desktops

[LINM]

If the company in question is running Xandros Desktop that comes with CrossOver, would there be an advantages to opting for CrossOver Server as well?

BTW, not to be redundant to an above comment, but CrossOver on Xandros rocks.

How can Codeweavers warrant customers legally?

[mbkennel]

How exactly can Codeweavers ""warrant"" its customers against Microsoft's interference?

Just because Codeweavers says something doesn't mean it's true: "If you buy from me, Big Green Meanie over there can't sue you!" Unless BGM has agreed to this both with Codeweavers and you, how can it have any validity? When did Microsoft give up its rights to sue anybody whom it thinks is violating its licenses and contracts?

To me Codeweavers ""warranty"" seems about as worthwhile as, well, a level-1 godblessyew spell from that homeless guy whom you gave your sandwich.

LOL

[c0ol]

+funny =D

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[PurpleFloyd]

You can't buy a single legal copy. Part of the EULA says that if you don't accept the terms, you should return it for a refund (not that they'll give it to you; remember Windows Refund Day). Of course, it's Microsoft's decision to only license their software.

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)

[malxau]

I bought a copy of the original 'The Microsoft Office' the other day for a joke. I'd have to check, but I'm quite sure the license says that a seperate license is required for each concurrent 'use' of the software, and a dedicated server doesn't count as a 'use.'

In other words, old software won't help you.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[johnnyb]

What requires you to accept the EULA? There isn't really any legal requirement that I'm aware of to accept an EULA, since the transaction is already complete.

Let's pretend you bought a house with a pool. Upon entering the house, you find the pool covered with plastic saying that you didn't have a right to use it unless you agree to additional terms. What would you do? I'd rip off the plastic and use it anyway, because I bought the stupid house.

Re:Informative? Should be (-1, delusional)

[Sloppy]

You can't buy a single legal copy.

Err... maybe I'm confused, but isn't the product in question that we're talking about, Microsoft Office? That is definately available in retail stores, on a simple cash-for-product basis, without any contracts.

Of course, it's Microsoft's decision to only license their software.

I agree, and it happens to be what my employer does (i.e. you can't just buy our software from us; there's an actual sales contract). But that's not how Microsoft works. I'm aware that some of their products can be licensed for a discount (i.e. a site license for MS-whatever costs less than buying 500 copies of it (and that's a perfectly valid incentive for getting people to license instead of buy)), but they also do sell copies of their products too. You can walk into a CompUsa and buy a box that contains MS Office. You might even be able to buy a computer that comes with MS Office preloaded (though maybe I'm thinking of MS Works). And these aren't "pirate" copies; they're legal. So just run it on one computer, don't license it, and you can have lots of people use that one computer.

Last Post!

[alpg]

The computer industry is journalists in their 20's standing in awe of
entrepreneurs in their 30's who are hiring salesmen in their 40's and
50's and paying them in the 60's and 70's to bring their marketing into
the 80's.
-- Marty Winston

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...