[THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
- From: "Roger Riggins" <roger.riggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 17:50:20 -0600
That's where we're at with this. We have many site to site VPNs already
in place and they're used strictly for terminals, so I don't really care
about end point checking. We don't allow user VPNs other than the SSL
tunnel created by CSG. We will not gain anything by moving to CAG at
this time, but still intend to purchase this year because Citrix will
strong arm us into it sooner than later.
Roger Riggins
Network Administrator
Lutheran Services in Iowa
w: 319.859.3543
c: 319.290.5687
http://www.lsiowa.org
-----Original Message-----
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jeff Pitsch
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 5:38 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
Why spend the money on a CSG replacement? Most mid to large companies
already have VPN solutions in place and don't want a second VPN solution
as well. Most companies vpn's are controlled by the network group, not
the windows group. citrix has no in to the network group and that's
much harder to get.
Jeff
On 2/23/06, Joe Shonk <joe.shonk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How do you figure? It's a perfect match for those companies using
Presentation Server. The fact that it can act as a drop in replacement
for their existing CSG is a big selling point. From there, the customer
can start leveraging the additional benefits of the box (VPN, End Point
Checking, AAC features, etc). Many of our customers are telling us that
end-point checking and security is now a requirement, not an option.
CSG no long fits that bill. I like CSG. It still has its place, but the
market is evolving.
Joe
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jeff Pitsch
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:56 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
True but you don't have to pay extra for connection licenses.
People are right though, CAG offers so much mor than CSG. I think it's
worth the price. It's just that those that do Presentation Server
aren't typically the people that you would seel CAG too.
Jeff
On 2/23/06, Steve Greenberg < steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:steveg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
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 <http://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
<mailto: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 < evandewars@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto: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
<mailto:jeremy.saunders@xxxxxxxxxxx>
"Jeff Pitsch"
< jepitsch@xxxxxxx <mailto: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
************************************************
<b>Lutheran Services in Iowa Confidentiality Notice
==================================================================</b>
<red>The information contained in this communication may be confidential,
is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and
may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its
contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately
and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer
system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please
contact the sender.</red>
Other related posts:
