[THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....

Yes, I agree...   Microsoft should now buy Packeteer (Tacit, or however
you spell them) ... although it is a good start.  The new system center
stuff looks promising.  It is very interesting and Microsoft seems very
excited about this.   We will see.  I tell you one thing.  It is just
fun to watch...  

 

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:       dbrown@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:dbrown@xxxxxxxxx> 

Web:        http://www.dabcc.com <http://www.dabcc.com/> 

 

________________________________

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Mangan
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 8:55 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....

 

Four little words in your post pose the problem to your utoipia.  "or
access to data".  I think there is still MUCH work to be done there.
But yes, long-run this (potential) deal one would be good for just about
everyone.

 

tim

 

 

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Douglas A. Brown
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:28 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....

 

Steve,

 

I agree with you...  I've been thinking a lot about this....  I think it
is this simple; there will come a day when you buy Office 12 and you
will receive it as a virtualized app.  All you will need to do is drop
it on a system and issues around app conflict are over...  the roaming
profile issues are over... then extend that to services and everything
works together but does not conflict.    That is what I think will
happen...  I have a GOOD "feeling" about this too...it will happen with
the Vista client...  Then think VS.NET 2007 will compile a sequenced
version or something like that... Forger .msi... and setup.exe... think
virtualized applications... It only makes sense....  It will just be
built in... then someday apps like Citrix, and it is really an app after
all, will be vitalized also... everything will be... everything....
They will all work in a SECURE / ISSOLATED bubble...  

 

Then Citrix will be left to do what is was designed to do, overcome
remote issues and deploy any, any, any, any... it will just not have to
deal with conflicts and heck that is the big problem we have...      So,
the only way it hurts Citrix is Tarpon, its dead for Vista and it will
have to compete with SMS for older versions of Windows...  The best
thing Citrix can do is table Tarpon and partner with Microsoft to
promote the NEW way of app deployment....   Oh, I would think with this
way of computing then you would only use Citrix for remote computing and
you would use the virtualized apps for workstation computing.  The
beauty of it is that if you designed it right then a user can roam for
workstation to citrix/ts back to workstation and never loose a setting
or access to data...  that will cut in to Citrix idea that ALL apps
should be deployed to the workstation via Citrix.  I don't believe that
anymore.. this is a better way to deploy for LAN workstations... 

 

 

Thoughts? 

 

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:       dbrown@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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: Saturday, May 20, 2006 1:39 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company..... 

 

BTW- I think MS integrating SoftGrid into the OS is the best possible
scenario for Citrix. Think about it, they have always had to carry the
"blame" for app problems. If everything is virtualized and streamed by
the OS, Citrix just has to sell and maintain the platform. That seems
like a win for Citrix to me!!

 

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: Friday, May 19, 2006 9:03 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company..... 

 

I heard the same thing but it went like this... or this is the rumor I
heard....  Citrix wanted to buy only the SystemGuard part and Softricity
had no choice but to say no or they would have sold the one part they
really need.     Also, I heard the amount was not enough to satisfy
Softricity's investors... you know, they do have a LOT of them... 

 

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:       dbrown@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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: Friday, May 19, 2006 12:03 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company..... 

 

I do not have authoritative information but I am under the impression
that Softricity passed on Citrix, not the other way around.....

 

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 Chris Grecsek
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 8:16 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company..... 

 

Penny smart, pound foolish...that's how I'd describe the way Citrix has
been run as an organization the past few years. I knew they had an
opportunity to buy Softricity and choosing to go it on their own just
isn't/wasn't smart...

 

If M$ does end up buying Softricity I'll be very curious to see how that
changes the pricing and where/how M$ tries to incorporate the technology
into their overall product lines. Has anyone had any experience with the
integration between SMS and Softricity? How does it compare to some of
the other tools that are starting to integrate with Softricity - RES? 

  

 

________________________________

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Douglas A. Brown
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 7:38 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company..... 

 

Oh man, I sort of feel for them... they are 0 for 2 on the good
acquisitions.  I mean, I heard that Citrix could have bought VMware for
under 300 million and also had the chance to buy Softricity but choose
to try to copy their technology and just might end up with egg of their
face.  It ought to be interesting, as I like to say...  

 

Just think what might have been if Citrix would have bought both of
them... and they had the money, heck, they spent the money of small
companies that have panned out but not like VMware did for EMC or what I
feel Softricity will do for Microsoft...  

 

Crazy news....

 

Douglas A. Brown

President and Chief Technology Officer 

 

Microsoft MVP, Windows Server 

 

DABCC, Inc.

 

Phone:     (954) 778-9558

Fax:         (248) 479-0621

 

E-mail:       dbrown@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:dbrown@xxxxxxxxx> 

Web:        http://www.dabcc.com <http://www.dabcc.com/> 

 

________________________________

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Andrew Wood
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 4:41 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company..... 

 

I wonder if Citrix are...oo whats the business accounting term for
it.... ah thats it ...shitting it ... right now?

 

________________________________

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Douglas A. Brown
Sent: 19 May 2006 02:40
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company..... 

Jim,   like this?

 

 

Sources: Microsoft In Talks To Buy Softricity

http://www.crn.com/sections/breakingnews/dailyarchives.jhtml?articleId=1
88100194

 

 

I knew it... I knew it... I knew it...  I've been saying this for awhile
now and I just new it...  It only makes sense...  

 

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:       dbrown@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:dbrown@xxxxxxxxx> 

Web:        http://www.dabcc.com <http://www.dabcc.com/> 

 

________________________________

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jim Kerr
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 5:00 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company..... 

 

Very interesting Doug.  I'll bet things will continue to get
interesting.  We will see. 

        ----- Original Message ----- 

        From: Douglas A. Brown <mailto:dbrown@xxxxxxxxx>  

        To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 

        Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 3:26 PM

        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?intPKT
ext=1921&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:       dbrown@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 Greenberg
<mailto:steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  

                                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: