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.""
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!
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.
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?
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
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
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.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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?
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.
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.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
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.
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.
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.
What kind of a reply is this?
in the absence of other configurationI installed Windows XP and "in the absence of other configuration", when I tried to print it ust gave me an error. Naturally, configuration is important, that's why companies hire adminsitrators.
So if your cubicle is on the 8th floor and the server is in the basement, you have some work to do as an administrator, auto setting default print queues based on users.Surprise! The administrator supporting all those fat clients running Windows has some work to do to get those computers printing to the nearest printer.
The problem becomes more difficult when the printer type is unknown in advance (i.e. telecommuting users connecting from their home pc).When I log onto Windows Terminal Server, does it know where I am?
More specifically, what if the home user has a Qwezbit SuckJet 9000 Win-Printer attached to their parallel port, and there's no linux driver?THE COMPANY SENT HOME A LINUX DESKTOP AND A WINDOWS PRINTER?!?!!?!??? (oh, excuse me, i got a little excited there) Now what would possess a company to do that?
I think you are grasping at a straw. Companies hire adminstrators to take care of their companies. The adminstrators have configuration to do whether it's on 2000 fat clients, or 2 servers. The difference is which solution is easier to configure and support.
-Brent