[THIN] Re: Secure Gateway status ?
- From: Durf <stygmata@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 19:22:07 -0500
From my point of view, it's about the SMB market. There are plenty of SMB
businesses with a small Citrix deployment who have no VPN solution, or some
old and difficult to administer, shared-secret IPSec VPN they got back with
their Cisco 1700 in '96.
You go and tell a medical, legal, or accounting practice that they can have
a secure, no-config VPN from anywhere, and they can use either
Citrix/Terminal Services or VPN to their laptop / desktop / internet cafe
system, and they're all over it like white on rice.
That's what the hotness about this device is all about currently -- SMB, not
the enterprise.
-- Durf
On 2/23/06, Jeff Pitsch <jepitsch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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> 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
> >
> > 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* < 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> 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
> > thin-bounce@freel
> > cc
> > 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 > 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 > 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
> > ************************************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
--------------
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute.
But set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Other related posts:
