Slashdot Mirror
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.""
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.
Esse quam vederi.
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.
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'.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
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.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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
--
If code was hard to write, it should be hard to read
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
now STFU, you clown.
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.
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.
There's nothing in there that states physical connection. Wireless connection is still a connection.
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.
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?
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."
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
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)
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.
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.