[THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
- From: "Steve Greenberg" <steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 10:33:17 -0700
Not to mention that while everyone says CSG is "free" I guarantee you that
most users run it on a server that costs more than $2495 including the OS!
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 Joe Shonk
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:22 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
To Citrix's defence tho... They do add alot of value and it keeps getting
better. If you take a look at what Citrix is doing (and going to do) with
the CAG line, it's easy to understand why they want to drop CSG. So far the
CAG is a hot item and has generated a lot of interest from customers.
Joe
On 2/23/06, Matthew Shrewsbury <MShrewsbury@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You got it.it's all about the money. The biggest problem with Citrix is the
pricing.
Matthew Shrewsbury, MCSE+Internet MCSE 2000 CCA Server+
Senior Network Administrator
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Joe Shonk
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:11 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN ] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
Even Extranet went the way of the Dodo... I would expect to hear an
annoucement come iforum. Remember Citrix's main goal is to be a billion
dollar company. Giving CSG away doesn't generate revenues and takes away
from CAG sales.
Joe
On 2/23/06, Edward VanDewars < <mailto:evandewars@xxxxxxxxx>
evandewars@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But you also have to spend an additional $75+ dollars per concurrent user
for licensing - above and beyond what you have already spent on normal
Citrix licenses (not to mention the cost of the device - for which you could
put in 2-3 CSG servers). That's the deal breaker for us (since we really
don't need the SSL VPN, just a secure connection back to the Citrix Farm)
and no amount of up-front CSG configuration costs could ever outweigh that.
I understand that it won't be going anywhere right now, but there is a
certain level of discomfort in knowing that part of our infrastructure will
eventually be phased out - especially if we don't know exactly when that
will happen.
On 2/22/06, Jeremy Saunders < jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Jeff is right. They will not phase out for some time as CSG has its place
with every Presentation Server deployment. What they are trying to do is
justify CAG over CSG as replacement by showing the dollars involved in
purchasing and setting them up.
CSG
-Need hardware.
-Need time to build it.
-Need to harden the good old Windows OS.
-Need a certificate
-Etc, etc, etc
CAG
-Need to configure it.
-Need a certificate.
So they are trying to say that CAG is cost effective.
Then of course you can do some really cool stuff with policies, and CAG can
also replace your existing remote VPN solution. So it doesn't just replace
CSG...it is so much more. It can replace your cludgy Cisco or Checkpoint
VPN solution and is so much more user friendly for the end users.
You can also "partner" the CAGs for redundancy. Doing this with CSG is not
a technically sound solution
And yes...I also believe that CAG will be rolled up into the NetScaler
hardware down the track. The activation codes will turn on the different
functions of the NetScaler, with CAG being one of them.
It's all very cool stuff, but CSG is an awesome product for its price :)
Kind regards,
Jeremy Saunders
Senior Technical Specialist
Integrated Technology Services &
Cerulean
IBM Australia
Level 2, 1060 Hay Street
West Perth WA 6005
Visit us at
http://www.ibm.com/services/au/its
P: +61 8 9261 8412 F: +61 8 9261 8486
M: TBA E-mail:
jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx
"Jeff Pitsch"
<jepitsch@xxxxxxx
om> To
Sent by: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
thin-bounce@freel cc
ists.org <http://ists.org>
Subject
[THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
23/02/2006 10:36
AM
Please respond to
thin
Everyone, do not overreact.
let's get serious here for a minute. CSG has only been truly updated once
over the past few years. Do not overreact to this news, CSG is still a
great FREE product.
Jeff
On 2/22/06, Greg Reese <gareese@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
that sucks. the CAG is their little appliance device right? It figures
that as soon as I got something running right, it would get tanked. My
next hurdle is smartcards. Lets hope they leave that one alone.
Greg
On 2/23/06, Rob Slayden < rslayden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:rslayden@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Had a Citrix product presentation at work today and the indication was
that the new Citrix Access Gateway product is supplanting CSG. I
specifically asked if this was a CSG replacement and was told that it
was. Sorry Greg!!
rob
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Greg Reese
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:29 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
I hope now. I just got it running nice and smooth.
On 2/23/06, M < mathras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:mathras@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
Can anyone confirm if development of Secure Gateway is to cease ?
************************************************
For Archives, RSS, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
//www.freelists.org/list/thin
************************************************
Other related posts:
