Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Operating Systems Software Windows

Distributing Windows Programs to Linux Desktops? 95

Posted by Cliff from the halt-the-change dept.
prell asks: "Our company has approximately 250 Linux desktops, and an array of Linux servers. Recently, we've been presented with the possibility of migrating all or most of these machines to Windows to support one industry-specific application, and we do not want this to happen. Coming to mind immediately were: Wine and CrossOver Office; some sort of multi-user VNC setup; Ndiyo; and VMWare. Keeping in mind that the desktop machines are low-spec (~350MHz CPUs on average), what are our options? How can we preserve our Linux install-base in the presence of a non-canonical Windows program?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Distributing Windows Programs to Linux Desktops? More

Distributing Windows Programs to Linux Desktops?

Comments Filter:

  • Windows Terminal Server (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kalak ( 260968 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @06:49PM (#12719279) Homepage Journal
    Windows Terminal server with the Linux desktops connecting via rdesktop [rdesktop.org] is another way (assuming the app runs on TS).

    (First Post)
    • Could be costly - Windows + CALs + licences for the app in question, but if the budget is there this is a really good option. It'd most certainly be cheaper and less disruptive than rolling out XP to each desktop. Also has the advatanges of making updates to the LOB app really easy - one machine and off you go.

      Price-wise, getting the app to run on the desktops would be cheaper, but almost certainly more of a nightmare in an ongoing situation.
      • Yes, licensing is expensive. But the cost of TS CAL is about the same as an XP license. As long as you only use the server for terminal services, and nothing else, e.g. file server, you should only need a TS CAL for each client. The cost of licensing the app should be the same. That is, most companies will say that 50 licenses on 50 computers is equivalent to 50 licenses on 1 computer. The advantage is that you don't have to upgrade the hardware on the desktops to support Windows.
        • But the cost of TS CAL is about the same as an XP license.

          That's not true at all. A TS CAL is about 1/3 the price of an XP license.

          • Indeed, a TS CAL is not very expensive - if bought in bundles of 25 or 50 it is very cheap - however, you will need windows licenses for all the computers that connect to TS as well (or atleast you did last time I checked the licensing) - of course if your old computers came with a win9x license that may suffice (I cannot say for sure).

            Citrix of course is not much different - but a bit more pricey - imho it's worth the extra cost though.
      • If the application runs under Wine or Crossover Office, then that would clearly be the cheapest and least disruptive option. But realistically, a lot of apps won't work like that, and you won't probably get support for it.

        So Windows Terminal Server or Citrix would be the option I think would be the best bet. It will be an especially attractive option if the application in question will be in use by a limited number of people at any one time, because it would be the best way to keep down the number of licen
      • Also has the advatanges of making updates to the LOB app really easy - one machine and off you go

        Not quite... you wouldn't want 200 users using a single server. We have 2 servers running Citrix supporting about 70 (non-concurrent) users. 20 users per server is ideal in our case, 25 is OK, 30 causes noticable slowdown for everyone. For 200 users I'd say you'd want 8-10 servers at least.

  • The perfect solution (Score:2, Informative)

    by treff89 ( 874098 )
    VMware is always a useful app, however your comps may be too slow. CITRIX!! Citrix would be _the_ best solution in this situation. Works great on that speed hardware, doesn't require a great amount of bandwidth, and runs with all applications EXTREMELY well. Clients available for Linux. I'd say, the perfect solution.

    • I agree with this entirely. Metaframe is designed exactly for the situation where you want to distribute one application to a large number of clients, whether they be running windows or linux.

      With the single application mode you can run a single application like you would using X forwarding and there are loads of really cool optimisations they have done recently.

      I'd recommend using the Java client rather than the native linux one, however. Eww Motif.

      • "what are our options?"

        "I'd recommend using the Java [cytrix] client rather than the native linux one"

        i'd recommend trashing away the windows-only app and looking really hard for a Linux-compatible one, full stop.
  • The best way is really try to avoid that Windows App. Emulation works (sometimes) but it's a fix, not a sollution. If you're to stick with a good Linux-based solution, now it's the time.

    Isn't there another solution besides that Windows Application that does the same thing?

    • God forbid you just rewrite it yourself for linux.
      • or get the developer to do that for you.

        Don't laugh. It is probably not as hard as one would think:

        Compile using WineLib [winehq.org].

        I'm learning this myself, but the crux of the matter is that although I am learned in perl, I am not in C, so I'm a bit ahead of myself. I really need to go back and learn C, then jump forward to trying to help companies out of precisely these kinds of messes.

        I'm gong through this right now trying to convince WatchGuard [watchguard.com] that they need to do a compile of their Firebox manager for Li
      • Gee that would depend on the application.
        1. It could be a HUGE project and might take a year or more to test and debug.
        2. They might not have the in-house knowledge to write the program.
        3. What if the application must be certified like a medical system?

    • It would help.... (Score:3, Informative)

      by numbski ( 515011 ) *
      ...if we knew what the software was. Is it a software publisher that is approachable? Would they be willing to consider doing a compile of the application using winelib?

      That is make a win32 exe that runs on linux natively.

      The more I look at migrating some office to OSS, there is always, ALWAYS that one application that the office can't part with for whatever reason. Or there are excel/word macros that don't work in OOo and they can't/won't re-write them to work in OOo.

      If the office is commited to it,

      • Re:It would help.... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Saturday June 04, 2005 @01:03PM (#12724445)
        Is it a software publisher that is approachable? Would they be willing to consider doing a compile of the application using winelib? That is make a win32 exe that runs on linux natively.

        This is definitely an option. In fact you don't even need vendor co-operation, CodeWeavers can make apps run without access to the source code.

        I work for CodeWeavers and I'll say now that for 250 licenses we can put a few hours into making a custom app work for you. For exact details you'd need to contact jwhite@codeweavers.com. How much effort it'd take to get the app to Gold status depends on a lot of things. It may require no effort at all, in which case your problem is already solved. Congratulations. You have a zero cost way to deploy this app.

        It may be that the app basically does work, but it's not reliable or it suffers visual glitches. This is the sort of app we can often make work in return for guaranteed sales of X licenses, even without the source code.

        It may be that the app won't start or won't install so you can't tell, but we can coax it into working and give you an evaluation. We have 4 developers who specialise in installers (2 in MSI, 2 in InstallShield respectively), so this is definitely possible. We usually do "kick the tires" evaluations either cheaply or for free.

        Basically, the best solution for your desktop users is going to be a Wine/CrossOver based solution. The app will run at native or nearly native speed, you won't need an app server, it will integrate nicely with their desktop and appear in the menus, copy and paste will work etc. And you don't need any Windows licenses. Seriously, drop us a line.

    • The point of IT is to support the business and make things more cost effective and efficent. If you start telling your business side they can't use the best product for thier industry you are preaching platform ideology instead of working to improve the business.
      • True, but you might be making the opposite assumption. Maybe the business side is much better off with Linux and it's just this one app that's the problem. The original description doesn't give enough info to be sure. Hopefully, they made that decision correctly when they went with Linux in the first place.

        Graham

  • winframe servers and rdesktop (Score:3, Informative)

    by rusty0101 ( 565565 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @06:51PM (#12719305) Homepage Journal
    Possibly the easiest would be to set up a collection of winframe servers in your server farm, and attach to them as needed via rdesktop from your Linux desktops.

    Then again, I have not implemented this, so your experience may differ.

    -Rusty
    • Rdesktop works fine. Just be aware you're still going to have to pay for terminal server connection licences.

      • Rdesktop works fine. Just be aware you're still going to have to pay for terminal server connection licences.

        Yes, but probably less than the cost of all the new computers to support the app.
      • Rdesktop works fine.

        This is the first I've heard of it so I assume either it's fairly new, or I have been spending WAY too much time in EverQuest lately (probably the latter) - but when you say rdesktop works fine ... does that mean it is a solution I can adopt for a production (commerical) environment without fear that it will hose something up and get me fired, or does that mean it is good enough (with a few quirks that I will have to overlook) for me to sneak in and use in an academic or play environme

    • Re:winframe servers and rdesktop (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Windows Terminal Server would be less problematic. Citrix opens up an entire can of worms. I have been running a farm of about 20 Metaframe servers for two years now. The additional features it brings to Terminal Server are simply not worth the trouble.

      The short list:

      1. Citrix servers have to be rebooted every night or they exibit wildly unpredictable behavior.

      2. Each Windows 32-bit client that connects to a Metaframe server uploads its print driver(s). If one of these print drivers disagrees with the se

  • Depends on the applications (Score:4, Informative)

    by mangu ( 126918 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @06:53PM (#12719320)
    Where I work we have some Linux desktops. At first we used VMware with good results, but on my own machine I use wine. I found that the only windows application I really need to use is Lotus Notes, and it runs very well on wine. However, some people here have excel macros that they can't run on OpenOffice, so they are still running VMware.
    • A couple of hours of porting has got to cost less that VMWare licensing fees...
    • QEmu, with KQEmu, has a similar architecture and similar performance to VMWare.

      Except it's Open Source.

  • What is the ONE application? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @06:54PM (#12719329) Homepage Journal
    What is the ONE application that's about to drive this much churn in your shop? Perhaps rather talking about minor things like preferences and productivity, start talking about the cost of replacing 250 low-spec desktops with new machines, as well as any upgrades needed for your array of servers.

    Since you probably can't tell what the ONE application is that's worth turning your whole IT infrastructure upside-down for, can you give a few of its properties? Is it a heavily interactive communications program? Is it a simulator? Before anyone can evaluate alternatives like VNC, WINE or VMWare, more information is needed.
  • Keeping in mind that the desktop machines are low-spec (~350MHz CPUs on average), what are our options?


    Well, running Windows is not an option unless you're going to replace those machines.

    I'd say Windows terminal services with a linux client connecting to them. That would cause the least amount of disruption.

  • Your company's priorities (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NitsujTPU ( 19263 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:00PM (#12719367)
    Your company is apparently willing to incur the licensing costs of Windows, Windows applications, and this new app, but is unwilling to upgrade its desktops to hardware worth more than $10.

    I think that your company is going to fold. You guys really need to figure out a lot more than how to obviate the need for an OS migration.
  • Keeping in mind that the desktop machines are low-spec (~350MHz CPUs on average), what are our options?

    In situations like this, I suggest consulting the Bastard [theregister.co.uk]

  • VNC? (Score:1)

    by Seumas ( 6865 )
    It would depend on what the application is, how many people need to access it at one time, if they're all in the same office/network and how often they'll access it... but maybe just having few spare windows boxes in a server room with VNC setup on them would be enough? Too bad you can't have multiple user instances running simultaneously on a single windows box (at least, not to my knowledge yet). Otherwise that really would be a nice solution, I think. Plus - with TightVNC, you could use the java-based we

  • Sun recently bought a company that claims to allow Windows and Linux apps to be used over Java clients.

    http://www.tarantella.com/ [tarantella.com]
    • ROTFLOL.. yes and on fedora code 3 I run the windows client and run it under wine, because the Linux client does not work.

      I then get a complete desktop, and this is all over 384k dsl, so its not that bad.

      I'm totally serious about this! I'm able to do this and work remotely.

      What's really cool, is running Linux, then using wine to run the tarantilla client, then connecting to a remote cytrix server, all over dsl.

  • VMware has no right running on low powered desktops. Win4lin will run the windows apps at near native speeds and their latest version finally supports WinXP/2000. I've used all their releases except for this last one and I've got nothing but good things to say about it.
    • Ummm, Win4Lin (like VMware) still requires that you purchase a copy of Windows for each computer. His existing computers won't run XP particularly well natively, let alone through W4L, and you can't purchase 98SE anymore.

      So he'd still be looking at having to pay for new computer upgrades, ones that probably have Windows licenses already paid. Guaranteed this ends up costing more than migrating everyone to new Windows boxes.

      Don't get me wrong, W4L is a great product (I use it too), but I don't think it w

  • Don't defeat your main purpose! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @07:36PM (#12719616) Homepage Journal
    You can probably use Wine to support your one Windows app. Not easy, but doable.

    Crossover Office won't help you. It's just Wine pre-configured to support a lot of standard apps. People buy it to save themselves the (severe) headaches of hand-configuring Wine.

    All the other choices you mention are ones you absolutely must not consider. Why? Because they defeat your primary purpose. Which is not just to get this one Windows app working. It's to maintain Linux as your primary desktop environment. If keeping Linux supreme in your workplace is your primary goal, then you must find a way to allow your users to run this app under Linux. If you force them to fire up a separate Windows environment just to run one program, you're telling them that Linux can't meet their needs. Eventually, they're going to say to each other, "Why are you using this stupid system that the geeks like, but doesn't run all the programs we use? Why don't we just run Windows?"

    • I feel like I'm posting this all over the place, and I keep advocating a solution that I've not even trie d myself. I hope to this weekend though:

      1. Set up a box running *nix, wine, and the application you want to run.

      2. Set up ssh to allow x11 forwarding.

      3. Set up shared keys to that you can ssh as yourself to that machine from your workstation without a password.

      4. Set up an icon on your desktop for that app that executes: ssh -X user@server "wine app.exe"

      Theoretically, you should now be runnin
    • On the contrary, CrossOver office might well be a good solution. I've seen apps that I could install and run under CrossOver quite easily, that I couldn't coax to run under Wine. And this is aside from the supported apps.

      It doesn't cost much to try it out...

      -- John.
      • Dude, think it through. As I said before, CrossOver Office is just Wine pre-configured to support a list of programs. If your program is not on that list, CrossOver Office won't do you any good. Since the program the guy's trying to run is an "industry-specific application" I think it's a safe bet that it's not on the list.

        • CodeWeavers [codeweavers.com] is a company that is looking for some more people to buy their product. They will make the tweaks needed to get your software to work - for a fee of course. There are two advantages of buying Wine from Codeweavers, one is they will make the tweaks you need to make your stuff work, and the other is it supports Wine development, which supports linux.

          CodeWeavers is not such a large company that they can afford to turn down money. They will be happy to discuss terms to get any application s

          • That still comes down to customizing Wine. This is something you can do yourself, or you can hire a consultant to do it for you. If you hire a consultant, CodeWeavers is probably a good bet (they invented Wine, so they presumably know something about it) but they're hardly the only Wine consultants on the block.

            All of which has nothing to do with CrossOver Office. Which (I'll say it a third and last time, then give up) is just a prepackaged set of Wine configurations.

        • That's true, but I have also found that in general it's easier to get even non-supported Apps working under Crossover than under regular ol' wine.
    • >Crossover Office won't help you.

      No, but Crossover DEVELOPERS can.

  • no way (Score:1)

    by tdmg ( 881818 )
    tell your company to think again. Migrating to Windows on such old machines will reduce productivity by a ton. Your machines will just be too slow. Keep Linux and just get Wine, unless you want to buy 250 new computers.
  • I've had excellent success running common Windows applications with Crossover Office. What is the application you are pushing to all the PCs?

  • Another remote solution (Score:3, Informative)

    by pyrrhonist ( 701154 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @08:17PM (#12719869)
    If you're unwilling to purchase a Windows 2003 Server and a Microsoft Terminal Services license set, but still would like to run the troublesome application remotely, here is another solution.

    All you need is a Windows XP Professional machine with your software on it, and then you can run WinConnect Server XP [thinsoftinc.com]. It is inexpensive, uses regular Windows RDP, includes a fairly decent admin tool, and you can try it out for free. ThinSoft also makes a Linux client, but you can use rdesktop [rdesktop.org]. The bad news is that it only allows 21 clients concurrently.

    No, I don't work for them, but I have used their software quite a bit. Their site leads you to believe that they only sell licenses in groups of three, but in fact, they are more than willing to sell you individual licenses. All in all, their system works rather well.

  • Since the computers are already networked then the beat solution may be to run those applications under WINE [winehq.com] on a linux server. CrossOver's Office Server Edition [codeweavers.com] provides an easy way to do this, but it is possible to do the same with effort from the WINE [winehq.com] sources without added cost.

    WINE/CrossOver uses the networked X wire protocol [x.org] which can be piped through a encrypted ssh or a third party encrypt/compression system like the NX Terminal Server system [nomachine.com]. In combination with some of the newer dual/multi process

  • Rolling out windows isn't an option on 350MHz machinery. You'd have to buy some new boxes.
    Assuming you just get some cheapo dells...

    250 desktops * $400 = $100,000.

    Oh, they wanted to run Office apps while they're at it? Assuming you can get some volume discounts that could be another $50,000.

    Now you have a bunch of windows boxes but no active directory or shared file servers? You probably have some decent spec servers you could use for these, but you still have to pay for the software and CALs. I don
    • >they wanted to run Office apps while they're at it? Assuming you can get some volume discounts that could be another $50,000.

      Maybe they want to run office apps, not Office apps.
      In this case this case it would cost them around $0.
      • Maybe they want to run office apps, not Office apps. In this case this case it would cost them around $0.

        in that case, they'd be wanting to run OOoOffice apps.

    • Re:run some numbers (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Snotboble_ ( 13797 )
      And that's not all of the cost. Your numbers assume that there are no existing Linux apps to migrate to the Windows platform.
      So, to make things more interesting, you'll need to either
      1) Add LTSP servers to run the legacy apps (a guestimate is a $10,000 server per 25-30 users) plus X Server licenses (say, $50 per PC if you don't want to fiddle with Cygwin),
      2) Port the applications to Windows,
      3) Provide users with an extra PC if they cannot use 1) or 2) for some reason.

      Depending on the outcome, it can very q
    • Would whoever modded this a troll please explain themselves to me. If you post anonymously it won't undo the mod point.

      Other estimates from other threads were in the same ballbark, with less than an order of magnitude difference.

      Hmmm, I used a four letter word, but I didn't use that word to describe open source or windows or anything, it was just part of an exclamation.

      I'm sorry I used uppercase to make my final point, but to me $250,000 is a lot of money and worth emphasizing. Maybe some people have b

  • consider porting it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cahiha ( 873942 ) on Friday June 03, 2005 @11:09PM (#12720887)
    For the amount of money that it's going to cost you to do this (easily $500k), you may be able to create your own version of the application. Of course, I realize that that may not always be possible, but it is worth considering.

    There may be a web-based version of the application.

    You may be able to outsource the application and have your users access it through rdesktop.

    If you only have a few users using it at a time, then accessing a bank of Windows machines through VNC should be enough.

    If it's a high-powered application that can't be ported, then you're in trouble. If you are really, really lucky, you can run it under an old version of NT on VMware on your current hardware and under Linux. If it requires a new version of Windows and/or significant resources, you need to upgrade all your hardware, no matter what you do. I'd still get a site license for VMware and run Windows under Linux--that way, at least you more easily avoid the costs of downgrading to an all Windows server infrastructure and retraining everybody, and you can more easily distribute and lock down the (virtual) Windows desktops.

    Don't blame your decision of using Linux up to now for your predicament--consider yourself lucky that you have been able to save money so far. The cost of dealing with Windows now (hardware upgrades, licenses, installation, system management, etc.) is the cost you would otherwise have been paying roughly every two years as the cost of doing business.
  • I suppose if you tried it and it worked, you would have had little reason to ask slashdot. Have you tried it yet? If you haven't, you really should before contemplating other options. Always use the latest release.

    One difficulty with Wine is getting all the prerequisites for the software you need. I'm not completely sure of the legality of copying genuine Windows dll's to use in Wine, but it's probable not as legal as we'd like. Copying certain dll's does fix a lot of compatibility issues though, and some
    • "Always use the latest release." This isn't always necessarily true. Sometimes an increment in wine versions breaks apps that worked fine in the previous version. This is true with Cedega as well.
      • I just know that for over a year, all backslashes appeared as W's, for example, so I don't consider them to be very stable. I heard they're working toward a stable release now, so I expect that newer releases will be more stable and bug free than the older ones.

  • Consider ROI (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zarf ( 5735 ) on Saturday June 04, 2005 @03:28AM (#12721930) Journal
    The specific numbers are what have to drive your decision. I've read the other posts and most folks are quoting numbers between $150,000 and $500,000 which is a pretty small range considering we have no idea of exactly what software you need on all those linux desktops. I expect that $250,000 is a fairly good SWAG ... but again, we have no real idea of what you need license/support wise.

    An interesting comment made by a boss o'mine was along the lines of, "Why pay my programmers/techs to support a program that is practically a commodity?" The logic goes: If Operating Systems have vendors why write your own? If Word Processors have vendors why write your own? And so on. You focus your IT crew on the unique problems that your particular organisation faces.

    I would push one level farther. Why pay for an OS/Word Processor/Browser if there is one that is free? Pay for the support contracts if you need support. Don't pay for software that there exist perfectly acceptable free substitutes for.

    Keep in mind the stuff is free as in speech not just free as in beer. That means if you have an Open Source support guy on staff who contributes into the community, the whole community wins... you get better support... and you still employ the same number of IT staff. Yes, you lose one guy from your core IT goals... but you still lose one person to Anti-Virus stuff and pay-per-year software issues.

    If you can do one of the following you might want to consider a Linux/Open Source strategy:

    1. Use an Open Source Community project to replace most of the functions of your pay-per-year software. You might use Open Office instead of MS Office for example. You could use a universal document format that would work across a variety of platforms.
    2. Create and maintain a replacement that is platform independent or SOA based. The replacement could be used as a platform for your business' future development. If you go SOA you can then support platforms such as PDAs, Cell Phones, and Kiosks. This only makes sense if you get a good ROI
    3. You could decide to use Wine/CrossOver/Lin4Win or whatever to provide emulation of Windows. In my personal experience only "stuff" that works with Windows 98 will work properly on Wine.
    4. I would put VNC or Citrix at the bottom of the list, but it could be a very cheap alternative. You just show the application where you need to. You could potentially get away without having to rewrite/retool anything. (except for the VNC server/client or Citrix server/client)
    If none of these ideas offer a big enough payoff or offer a significant savings... I hate to say it but... you really might be better off as a windows shop.

    Most companies pull money from different "pools" and many companies think that purchasing windows computers is a one time capital expense. It's not. You end up having to purchase new software annually from Microsoft or third parties to keep your systems running and patched.

    Make sure you make the decision fully educated about recurring costs and the life-cycles of all your systems. Pay-per-year systems will cost you more in licenses and still require staff to support them. Open Source will require either service and support contracts, additional "expert" staff (or staff training), or both.

    You can control whether OSS shifts underneath your company. You cannot control whether a vendor pulls support or shifts technology. If you go OSS you free your company from "Data Hostage" situations where other companies control your business' data.

    If you go with Pay-per-year software you can get cheaper staff and supplement them with service/support contracts reasonably cheaply. That will change as more and more IT folks become experts with OSS.

    The choice is: commit to a vendor and keep them happy since they essentially hold your data and your company hostage. OR commit to a community and quality employees who will hold expertise that is hard to replace.

  • Real world example (Score:5, Informative)

    by DarkDust ( 239124 ) <marc@darkdust.net> on Saturday June 04, 2005 @04:15AM (#12722133) Homepage

    I can give a concrete example on how we solved a few problems with Windows applications in a Linux-only environment.

    I worked on a big migration project here in Bavaria, where the complete Blood Donation Service Of The Bavarian Red Cross switched from individual Windows desktops to a centralized application server/thin client system. I estimate this are about 1000 users affected. The migration was done about two years ago.

    A short overview: The users are using Linux based thin clients which I've developed to connect to an array of application servers on which I've worked as well. Every site has its own application servers, in Munich we currently have three or four of them (Dual PIII 1.4GHz, 2GB RAM) and IIRC about 200 people do their daily work on them... no performance problems, but if we had we just would add another server. The thin clients connect to the servers through DNS round robin which is enough load balancing in this case. The application servers are just normal SuSE 8.0 servers with KDE 3.1 where I've configured KDE to restrict what users may do (e.g. they are not allowed to move the Kicker bar... we did things like this to prevent support calls like "My start bar is now on the right, help !" ;-).

    Now, the Blood Donation Service people who are working in the areas where the donated blood is prepared and checked for diseases rely on a specific application which only runs on Windows. We evaluated running this application with Wine but it wasn't good enough for this application back then. To make a long story short, this is how we're doing it:

    We have a few Linux servers on which we're running Windows terminal servers (I don't know which Windows) in VMWares. I explain the reason for this later. Clients who are working on the application servers connect to the Windows servers with rdesktop. The users' home directories are on NFS servers which means they get their home directory on every application server and on the Windows servers as well. This works very well. Only a few dozen people need to access Windows servers because of this and another industry-specific application.

    We needed to identify which thin client is accessing the Windows application. Because rdesktop runs on the application server we needed to do a trick: I've enhanced our thin clients to include a finger server which tells finger clients the MAC address of the thin client. When the users log in to the application server the MAC address is finger'ed from the thin client and stored in an environment variable. And when the users then start their rdesktop the MAC address is passed as host name ;-) So Windows thinks the user is connecting from, say, a computer called 00AB12CD34EF and this can be evaluated on the Windows side :-)

    Now for the reason why we run Windows in VMWares: the whole point of our architecture is that we have a master site where all bavarian application servers are configured (new applications get installed there, for example) and they synchronize through rsync to all sites. This means all application servers are in sync and changes are only done on exactly one server. We wanted to do the same with Windows. In short: it's not possible with Windows-only methods and applications because of some limitations of Windows. The best solution is to run Windows in a Linux VMWare and rsync the VMWare disk from the master server to all site servers :-)

    This setup is running full-scale (i.e. in the complete Blood Donation Service of Bavaria) for about one and a half years, and it's running very well. No major problems. Even the 50+ secretaries didn't have any major problems (except for a bug in the Linux version of Acrobat Reader 5.0.x and PDF forms) ;-)

    • You might want to re-evaluate Wine, it's become a lot better than it was 3 years ago. And of course CodeWeavers are available to help if you need us.

      • You might want to re-evaluate Wine, it's become a lot better than it was 3 years ago. And of course CodeWeavers are available to help if you need us.

        I know... but the established system works well enough and in these dimensions you tend to stick to Never change a running system :-)

  • If you can't make the thing work in WINE or similar, a very easy way (although probably not cheap) to do it that places very minimal load on the client would be to get a Windows server running Terminal Services, then you can have people connect to it with rdesktop (faster and less intensive than vnc, as well as allowing lots of sessions off a single machine).
    Slap a little profile on people and they'll just get the custom app when they run it, not a windows desktop, which would be confusing and lead to peopl
  • In windows licenses alone, you would spend at least U$25000.00, not to say about other programs, and the whole virus/spyware mess. Is not that money enough to develop the functionalities you need from this application as a Free Software program?

    I can only see this as a "win - win" alternative - you spend less and keep control of your IT.
  • Yes Wine is an option.
    Yes VMware is an option.

    I too am in a situation where a proprietary windows application is required. In our case, our customers who don't want the application on their desktop use either Citrix or Microsoft Terminal Server (M-TS)for remote access. (I am biased toward Citrix, but that is only through years of comfort, not through an objective evaluation.)

    Our clients who use M-TS seem happy and stick with it. Our clients who use Citrix seem happy and sitck with that product.

Slashdot Top Deals

There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.

Close