[THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....
- From: "Andrew Wood" <andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 16:56:02 +0100
I thought virtuozzo was simply another esx/virtual server application - not
like softricity at all?
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: 19 May 2006 17:04
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....
Take a look at virtuozzo by SWSoft, this is where virtualization is going?..
Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
(602) 432-8649
www.thinclient.net
steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Cláudio Rodrigues
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:18 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....
It is for sure a very polished and compelling solution. BUT Citrix has a
history of screwing up their own sales channel and more than that, a huge
price tag because in a way customers are either tied to their subscription
advantage thing or because they think Citrix has no competitors (what Citrix
actually thinks as well).
Microsoft+E-Gap+Softgrid will simply give Citrix a run for their money, big
time. Many large places that do not even look at solutions like Provision
Networks, Ericom and ProPalms because they think they are no one, small
shops, etc with no real customer based will now look at Microsoft and see
they can deliver a lot Citrix is doing AND at a much lower cost.
Not to mention that all that BS that usually happens like ?Oh, Presentation
Server is not the issue; this is a Terminal Services problem ? says Citrix;
Oh, this is not a TS issue this is a Citrix issue ? says Microsoft? simply
disappears if you stick with Microsoft as your only vendor to deliver all
the stuff Citrix now has.
And Linux? Nope. Until real corporate apps used by end-users do not come up
(can you mention two or three major corporate apps that have Linux clients
available and if they are office reaplacements, that are 100% compatible
with Microsoft Office?) on Linux, Linux on the TS.Citrix world is
irrelevant.
And the fact Windows apps can run on Linux do not change the licensing
requirements. For example, most people do not know that if you run IE on
Linux using something like CrossOver from Codeweaver or even WINE, you MUST
have a Windows OS license. This simply kills the idea of such solution at
the corporate level. Why run a Windows app on Linux if you need the Windows
OSS license AND the app does NOT work as well as on windows? Not to mention
this app will then be automatically in an unsupported mode. You can MS and
tell them your greatplains client is now on WINE and you are having issues
and they will hang up on you right there. Which CTO would approve such
thing? No one I know on any of the Fortune 100-500s. They need to cover
their a**. And that is where the Microsoft toilet paper comes to the
picture.
I do think Citrix will go down the drain at one point. The same way I said
that many years ago about Novell and people tried to send me to the Arkham
Asylum at the time. :-)
Cláudio Rodrigues
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Terminal Services
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:53 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....
I see your point of view, but at the same time the full Citrix offering is a
very compelling set of functionality and features from a single vendor. I am
just finishing an implementation of a dual data center solution with
Netscaler, CAG, AAC, WI and PS - all fully redundant and fault tolerant.
This is a very compelling platform that the other products simply cannot do.
Granted these products are not cleanly and fully integrated, but within a
version or two they will be and there will simply be nothing like it out
there- especially from a single vendor.
So instead of saying Citrix watch out, I think a whole range of other
vendors need to watch out for Citrix- including MS. Remember, if MS ever
goes sour on Citrix, Citrix can always play the LINUX card and drop the
licensing costs by an order of magnitude to the end user!! With a minimum of
software development Windows apps can be running on LINUX in various
emulation and virtualization modes.
As far as MS buying Softricity, that is a sensible scenario but Softricity
has a lot of issues with the way the do business, they are more likely to
self implode then develop beneficial partnerships?.
Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
(602) 432-8649
www.thinclient.net
steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Douglas A. Brown
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:58 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....
Man, I?ve been saying this for awhile now and I?m working on an article that
details why I believe it but SoftGrid is going to be owned by Microsoft by
the end of 2006. I feel it in my bones. Microsoft needs them. They need a
solution that can take SMS over the top; they need a solution that will get
them into the virtualization market in a big way. Microsoft can do two
things with it.
1) Add it to SMS. They will then kill Altiris and Tarpon
2) Add it to Longhorn and Vista. They could give it away as a feature
to Longhorn and Vista and as a value prop to upgrade? Now, I would upgrade
for truly virtualized apps.
If they did this then I could use TS 2007 with SoftGrid/SMS to manage my
entire app base, everywhere! If I?m remote I use TS, if I?m local I use my
workstation and then all apps are deployment and monitored through SMS /
MOM. That brings us to MOM/SMS integration, which is planned? Not to
mention with this I have one support contract, from Microsoft.
So, that being said, mark my words? Microsoft SoftGrid coming soon.
So, what about Citrix? Microsoft SSL VPN vs. CAG, Tarpon vs. Microsoft,
MetaFrame vs. Microsoft? That is not good or Citrix, no matter what. I
think the Citrix channel is huge and for the most part I think that the
Citrix channel is blind to anything but Citrix but even with them I think
Citrix will have a hard time? They will become Oracle, a big boy that is
bought because you need to buy it? Do you buy Oracle because you want to?
No, you buy it because you have no choice?
Oh, let?s not forget the Citrix ecosystem? With the Reflectent purchase
Citrix just made enemies of about 5 different companies, with the UPD III
they made enemies of about 3 to 4 companies and the others are scared that
Citrix will buy something and then that hurts them where they live. So,
these ISV partners are ready to move to someone else too?. So, 2007 will
be interesting? it will?.
That is my humble opinion?. I?m curious about yours?.
Douglas A. Brown
President and Chief Technology Officer
Microsoft MVP, Windows Server
DABCC, Inc.
Phone: (954) 778-9558
Fax: (248) 479-0621
E-mail: <mailto:dbrown@xxxxxxxxx> dbrown@xxxxxxxxx
Web: <http://www.dabcc.com/> http://www.dabcc.com
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Cláudio Rodrigues
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 4:14 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....
For anyone that has deployed their e-gap solution, they are by far the
Rolls-Royce of this type of solution/appliance on the market. CAG is good
but not as polished as e-gap.
The next logical step is Microsoft acquiring Softgrid. That would be very
interesting. Microsoft/Whale/Softgrid versus Citrix/CAG/Tarpon? :-)
Cláudio Rodrigues
Microsoft MVP
Windows Server - Terminal Services
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Douglas A. Brown
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:26 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....
A bit off subject but not really?.
Did you guys see that Microsoft just acquired a SSL VPN company??? Weird,
hardware? but it is a Windows based VPN? unlike the CAG that is Linux. To
learn more check this out:
http://www.dabcc.com/dabcc/webapplication/aspx/dabcc.content.aspx?intPKText=
1921
<http://www.dabcc.com/dabcc/webapplication/aspx/dabcc.content.aspx?intPKText
=1921&intPKChannel=13> &intPKChannel=13
What do you think?? I think this is going to be very interesting for
Citrix as they are going to compete with Microsoft in the SSL VPN (CAG) and
the app deploy (Tarpon) markets?
DB
Douglas A. Brown
President and Chief Technology Officer
Microsoft MVP, Windows Server
DABCC, Inc.
Phone: (954) 778-9558
Fax: (248) 479-0621
E-mail: <mailto:dbrown@xxxxxxxxx> dbrown@xxxxxxxxx
Web: <http://www.dabcc.com/> http://www.dabcc.com
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Steve Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:22 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: New Access Gateway / AAC bits
I don?t recall the license port, but it is the standard one and is in the
documentation. When you enable AAC mode the CAG?s no longer require an
explicit license entry, the AAC takes that over as well as most other
functions. You can secure the communication between CAG and AAC with SSL
port 443 or just 80 and 9005 for management?..
Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
(602) 432-8649
www.thinclient.net
steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of l.bagdasarian@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:24 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Steve Greenberg
Subject: [THIN] Re: New Access Gateway / AAC bits
Thanks Steve.. I didn't know that the Presentation Server license Server can
be used to license CAGs.
What ports is it communicating to the CAGs: is it citrix port? Can it be
changed to 443?
If we think to add AAC later, can we continue using a Presentation License
Server or we need to move it to the AAC license Server?
Thanks again
Larisa
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Steve Greenberg" <steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
With CAG 4.2 you can actually use the same Citrix license server you use for
Presentation Server if you want to. In this case, it is the standard netbios
name of the server, i.e. just the machine name (you can type hostname at the
command line to see this)
Alternately, you can upload the license file into the CAG box itself. In
that case you use the value entered is in the filed called ?FQDN? on the
network setup screen. When doing this the licenses, and the cert by the way,
are included in the backup file so be sure to save off the config, this
could save you a lot of work if you ever have a hardware failure or have to
rebuild the boxes.
If you already have a Citrix licensing server I recommend using it when you
have more than one CAG.
Also note that the when you fulfill your license file from www.mycitrix.com
<http://www.mycitrix.com/> you do have to provide the license server
hostname. However, these licenses can be returned and reallocated to a
different hostname if needed.
Regards,
Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
(602) 432-8649
www.thinclient.net
steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_____
From: l.bagdasarian@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:l.bagdasarian@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:23 PM
To: steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [THIN] Re: New Access Gateway / AAC bits
Steve,
Can you answer this quick question, for me please.
We just received 2 new CAGs and I need to set them up as quickly as
possible.
I am fairily new to Citrix and didn't work with the CAGs yet. ( I've
impelmented the software version of CSG in our env.))
The documenation on CAG is pretty detailed. The question I have is about
the licensing.
As I understand, once you download it with the wrong host name -its
unpossible to change it. ???
I am in the process of downloading the CAG licenses and need to enter the
host name.
What do I use? Is it the URL (common name) that is assigned to our external
DNS? like hostname.insurity.com?
I don't see any other host names that is being assigned to the CAGs.
Thanks in advance.
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From: "M" <mathras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [THIN] Re: New Access Gateway / AAC bits
Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 15:39:10 +0000
Mind expanding upon the enterprise deployment components ?
Are you doubling things up for failover ? Seperate AAC components ?
Using Netscaler ?
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve <mailto:steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Greenberg
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 4:54 PM
Subject: [THIN] Re: New Access Gateway / AAC bits
Great timing, right in the middle of an Enterprise deployment and seeing
some of these issues!
thanks
Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
(602) 432-8649
www.thinclient.net <http://www.thinclient.net/>
steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of M
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:15 AM
To: Thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] New Access Gateway / AAC bits
4.2.2 released
http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX108902
New AAC Update
http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX109402
_____
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named
above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or
work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that you have received this document in error and< BR>that
any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and
delete the original message.
Other related posts:
