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.
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...
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.
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)
is usually quickly followed by BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA and "we have you now, mr. bond!"
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?
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
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!
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.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
I thought this had something to do with John Edward..like maybe if I ran this, my server would channel my old Commodore 64.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Will I retire or break 10K?
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.
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.
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.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
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.
... 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.
...
Why continue to chase Microsofts tail when better solutions could be developed that dont involve thier products at all.
I am not flaming
Congrats none the less
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
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
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
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?
four nine eighteen twenty-7 thirty-nine forty-7 fiftyeight sixty-nine seventy-9 eighty-8 one-hundred-and-nine one-twenty
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."
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
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.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
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.
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)
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
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.
You could, however, use Citrix ICA on Linux.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
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!
--==-- I've found Karma to be a relative thing... Ya know, the kind you invite to Christmas...
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.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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?
We're not talking about the GPL here; Microsoft EULAs don't give you anything of value. Just decline the offer.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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?)
rdesktop is a free terminal services client for Unix/X11 based platforms.
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".
May we never see th
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?
10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
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.
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.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
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
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
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.
Engineering and the Ultimate
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.