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

Whoa!  Slow down.... Roaming profile issues are over?  Microsoft has yet to
get roaming profiles right.  Adding softgid on top of this only complicates
the issue....  While Softgrid 4.0 promises to be better for profile
management than 3.0,  it is still far cry from what it should/could be.

Joe

On 5/19/06, Douglas A. Brown <dbrown@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

Web:        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

Web:        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

Web:        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=188100194





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

Web:        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 <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&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

Web:        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 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 <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

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: