[THIN] Re: Microsoft/Softrcity?
- From: "Steve Greenberg" <steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 09:16:54 -0700
>> Microsoft should add the server side of SoftGrid to Longhorn and the
>>client part to Vista
Now that would be very powerful!!
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 8:33 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft/Softrcity?
Tim,
I was hoping you would comment. I'm also glad you have a vested interest..
I think that is great!!!
OK, I agree with you on all your points. I also think this has NOTHING to
do with Citrix and has everything to do with Altiris SVS. Microsoft hates
Altiris and wants them out of the picture as SVS is getting a lot of airplay
and they are also Microsoft's biggest competitor in the manageably space.
The other great benefits of Softricity, such as TS is just a side benefit to
Microsoft.
The other thing that is interesting is, Whale. Add Whale with TS07 and
Softricity and you have a nice solution.. Not the best but it is a start.
I also 100% agree that and have said it for awhile now, Microsoft should add
the server side of SoftGrid to Longhorn and the client part to Vista, give
it away as a feature, like they are doing with Apptimum, and that would be
reason enough to upgrade. Heck, Microsoft could pay one billion for it,
which they never would, and still make a profit due to upgrade sales of
Vista and Longhorn.
No matter what happens. It is just fun to watch.
Oh, again, I hope you become a millionaire off this too Tim.
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: Friday, May 19, 2006 11:13 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft/Softrcity?
I have long felt that Microsoft should buy the company, or if not them
Citrix, or - believe it or not - Cisco should. (VMware/EMC has some appeal
also). Current Softricity Customers might be better served in the short
term with a buyer other than Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't buy a company
like Softricity for the market and customers, but for the technology. So,
if Microsoft buys, SoftGrid as we know it would possibly become subsumed (in
pieces) into other things. In the long run, however, we all gain with this
technology put right into the OS. There are several avenues of possible
interest at Microsoft (SMS, VT, and even app migration). But Microsoft
tends to buy for a single reason (it seems to be in the nature of the VP
structure) and may not be able to exploit on all fronts.
That last option, app migration, is one that is not well understood so I
will talk about it more here. It helps Microsoft move customers from older
OSs to newer ones - something that helps the bottom line in 07 - 09 and on.
The purchase of Aptimium was clearly in that space - they were bought to
help migrate desktop customers to Vista, although more from a "identifying
the stuff to move over" basis. With the Softricity virtualization,
Microsoft could eliminate the current "shim" method of application
compatibility which really s**cks from Microsoft's perspective (Microsoft
ends up manually figuring out what shims to use). Eventually, insiders at
Microsoft have hinted, they want to move from massive OS upgrades, to making
the OS more modular. App virtualization techniques could also be used to
perform OS component virtualization, allowing Microsoft to update a portion
of the OS and still provide compatibility to applications that had
dependencies on the old component.
Or maybe they will surprise us all and it will be Ray Ozzie who brings them
in for something "Live"! It's fun to speculate.
Disclaimer: I don't have any inside info on this as it has been a long
while since I worked at Softricity, and certainly nobody there is dumb
enough to talk about any potentially pending deal. That said, I do have a
vested interest in the outcome.
tim
_____
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Jim Kerr
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 11:25 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Microsoft buys SSL VPN Company.....
Doug,
We do not comment on rumors or speculation. I really don't know anything
more than you do. :) I know you'll want to know more. You need to contact
David Greschler.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas A. Brown <mailto:dbrown@xxxxxxxxx>
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 9:39 PM
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:
