Arbortext Editor 6 and Remote Desktop

GarethOakes · ‎Jun 30, 2011

Hi guys,

One of our customers is trying to upgrade their system to Arbortext Editor 6.0 and has hit a roadblock.

[cid:image001.png@01CC37E7.5E5C6BB0]

In case you can't read the graphic above, the error message says:

(-103) Cannot checkout an uncounted license within a Windows Terminal Services guest session.

What the customer is trying to do is work with Arbortext Editor from home, just as they have for years previously in 5.3 and 5.4. The customer connects to his work desktop via Windows Remote Desktop. In this case, it seems that their node-locked license in Editor 6.0 does not want to play ball with Remote Desktop.

Has anyone else encountered this problem yet?

[cid:image002.jpg@01CC37E7.5E5C6BB0]

Gareth Oakes

+61-439-743-740

naglists · ‎Jun 30, 2011

Hi Gareth,

Yes. The change in licensing systems requires a floating license for Remote
Desktop authors. I will reply to an older e-mail from PTC on the subject
that should have all the information you need. After you're done reading it
over, you may want to drop a line to Susan Fort. There *may* be some help
available during transitions to the new requirements.

JasonBuss · ‎Jun 30, 2011

If you go back into the archive a couple of months, we had a pretty
detailed discussion with Susan Fort about upgrading to 6. If you had a
node-locked license, you have to use a floating license to access
Arbortext on a computer using RPC/terminal services; node locked
licenses will not work on a PC with Arbortext if you access the PC using
Remote Desktop.

Yeah, it does kind of suck. We've got an offshore team that we have to
upgrade to floating licenses in order to support them remotely if they
have issues.

-Jason

JasonBuss · ‎Jun 30, 2011

To clarify, the issue is with the Flexera FlexLM in use with Arbortext
6. Previous versions used the ELan license manager, and remote desktop
was not an issue.

GarethOakes · ‎Jul 01, 2011

Hi Paul,

Thanks for digging up the old thread. Good to hear others are having similar
experiences.

This is a massive red flag for our customers. Many are used to remoting in
to work on things and this is a showstopper for some people. It doesn't seem
right that PTC would remove functionality from a product "upgrade". That is
typically known as a regression. If you purchased something then you expect
it to keep working, and if you are paying maintenance, remain maintained in
its functional state.

We'll check in to what can be done for our customers. Thanks again for the
response!

Cheers,

Gareth

GarethOakes · ‎Jul 01, 2011

Oh and here's another thing I figured out. This new node-locked licensing
also won't work with desktop virtualisation via Windows Virtual PC (or
Windows XP Mode) because they actually use Remote Desktop Protocol in order
to connect to the VM's "screen". I guess VMware and VirtualBox will still be
OK.

-G

naglists · ‎Jul 01, 2011

Another potential gotcha I've heard about is if a machine (not sure if it
happens to hardware, virtual, or both) has two NICs, the licensing can fail
to recognize the machine. I think in some situations the OS may determine
the "primary" NIC based on initialization timing ... if the primary changes,
then the hash of the machine ID used by the licensing changes and the issued
license then fails. Something like that.

I'm not sure how easily this can happen or whether it has been fixed ...
just something I heard.

ebenton · ‎Jul 01, 2011

Is this Windows 7, Windows XP or what?

berard · ‎Jul 01, 2011

I was able to temporarily install a VNC server (TightVNC in my case), then
install the licence with no problem.

keith

berard · ‎Jul 01, 2011

Oh, and I suppose to clarify...

My situation is that I live/work in the Boston area, but our main servers
are in Seattle. I keep a headless machine in Seattle that I use for
development work... having an instance of Arbortext remote to test latency,
and one local as a control is a must. I'm still in the process of
evaluating 6, with the intent of rolling out at the end of the year in time
for our new writing cycle. We have a meeting at the beginning of January
where all of our writers get together in one place... an ideal time for
someone like me to upgrade and install licences.

Our writers pretty much all remote to Seattle, so we only employ locked
licences anyway. I sent a message to PTC support, and the response I got
was simply:

"As it is locked license, you cannot install it remotely. You have to
install it physically on that machine itself."

Knowing that the alternative would require me to either fly out to Seattle,
or get someone there to find the machine, hook up a monitor/keyboard, and
spend time getting the license installed, I tried a few other things.
Since the error message itself specifically mentioned Terminal Server (even
though this was just a simple XP machine that only allows a single login), I
figured I'd try VNC.

Install of the VNC server was a snap, connected right away, and allowed the
license install. Only suggestion is that you uninstall/disable VNC via
VNC, since you won't be able to RDP until you do.

That's it. I can't see in any way how this would violate any license
agreement, as it is a single locked license, a single machine that only
allows a single user at a time (again XP, not TS Server), and I'm
_technically_ wasting a full licence just for dev work anyway.

Good luck,

keith

lfraley · ‎Jul 01, 2011

This is absolutely true. The fix is to "go into regedit and make changes..."
Directly from Tech Support's mouth.

That's a bug, not a fix.

SusanFort · ‎Jul 01, 2011

Hi Gareth,

Your comment about removing functionality, I just wanted to follow up on that. No functionality was removed, in fact by moving to Flexera for licensing, there is more functionality available to customers (able to monitor usage, license borrowing, more license server capabilities, etc). Because the licensing technology changes, customer may need to make other changes, this is one example. Elan (the 5.4 and prior technology) was not particular on the type of license used in a RDP environment (fixed or floating), however, for the Flex license based products to work in RDP the license must be floating. You and your customer’s entitlements will continue to work, the entitlement will need to be upgraded from a locked license to a floating/concurrent license.

You need to contact your PTC sales contact, they can provide you guidance on how your organization, or your customers can convert their licenses (or I can help).

Please let me know if you have further questions.

Thanks

Susan

-----------------------------------------------------------

Susan Fort

Product Manager, Arbortext Business Unit, PTC

- | (937) 743-9091

In Reply to Gareth Oakes:

Hi Paul,

Thanks for digging up the old thread. Good to hear others are having similar
experiences.

This is a massive red flag for our customers. Many are used to remoting in
to work on things and this is a showstopper for some people. It doesn't seem
right that PTC would remove functionality from a product "upgrade". That is
typically known as a regression. If you purchased something then you expect
it to keep working, and if you are paying maintenance, remain maintained in
its functional state.

We'll check in to what can be done for our customers. Thanks again for the
response!

Cheers,
Gareth

GarethOakes · ‎Jul 03, 2011

We tested this on both Windows XP and Windows 7 with similar results.

-G

GarethOakes · ‎Jul 03, 2011

Hi Keith,

That's a great idea on using an alternative remote desktop tool. It seems to
me that the licensing component is most probably using Win32 API call
GetSystemMetrics(SM_REMOTESESSION)
<">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724385(v=vs.85).aspx> , so any
remoting tool that isn't based on Windows RDP should work fine.

-Gareth

GarethOakes · ‎Jul 03, 2011

I can understand this problem, there isn't a 100% bulletproof way to
uniquely identify PC hardware. I seem to remember on Sun equipment each
motherboard would have a unique ID burned into the ROM. I think they are
trying that on PC with the TPM chips but again that's an option and not
guaranteed to be there.

The other problem with the MAC address approach is if you needed to run FLEX
licenses on a machine that had no Network Interface - say the network
hardware had been disabled or removed for security purposes.

-Gareth

GarethOakes · ‎Jul 03, 2011

Hi Susan,

I understand this transition time will be "interesting" for those of us
involved. Thanks for taking the time to clarify the situation for myself and
the group. We really do appreciate all the input we get from PTC.

BTW, I am all for the new licensing system. It does seem better than ELAN,
and there are efficiency benefits in having a harmonised licensing model
across the PTC software range. The RDP restriction is the only
disappointment we have encountered so far.

Anyway, thanks again, I now have sufficient information to work through this
situation with our customer.

Cheers,

Gareth

ebenton · ‎Jul 05, 2011

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but when I am buying something and I see the word "upgrade" I usually infer the words "price increase". Does a concurrent license cost more than a fixed license? If so, then having to "upgrade" to a concurrent license for the same functionality may not constitute "removing functionality" but then what would be the correct term for paying more for the same thing...?
If there is no price difference, then never mind.