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

Oops.  One of us needed a turn signal there.  I meant "access to data" as in
dealing with profiles/shared folders/sharepoint/etc. associated with all
this virtualization.

 

  _____  

From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Douglas A. Brown
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:56 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [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:        <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 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:        <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: 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:        <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: 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:        <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 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=18810
0194

 

 

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:        <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 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?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: