0 for 2 is all I have to say... Citrix could have bought VMware but choose to pass.. I heard they could have done it for under 300 mil too... Bad choice #1 I heard Citrix could have bought Softricity but choose to do it themselves so they could hurt SoftGrid and force Softricity to sale for a lower price. Bad choice #2 In stead we have Password Manager and MSAM... I think the CAG and Netscaller were nice buys but take the money they spent on them and buy the others and you have.. well, if Citrix did not miss this boat then we would be saying, Microsoft who? The SMS integration is VERY tight. They have two solutions, 1) that uses 100% of SMS to manage and deploy SoftGrid packages and 2) one that still leverages the steaming capabilities in SoftGrid. Both are very tight and pretty much just part of the product. A lot like RES. RES, now that is a killer company... a killer product. Microsoft needs to buy them too. Add it to their products, Vista and Longhorn TS and wow... but I don't think they would do that as they love the GPOs to much.. Anyhoo... 0 for 2.... 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 Chris Grecsek Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 11:16 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.