[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: