Any comments on this guys remarks, however blunt they may be ?
Umm you're question is, "If the software is proprietory, and you have to load it on a server locally then what other methods are available (other than PC anywhere) to access the data? I know of no other solution to access data on the server at work other than Microsoft's terminal server loaded on Windows NT. The protocol is slow, and we all know Microsoft crashes."
First of all you're saying that the only way to access proprietary data is through Citrix. No, dumbass, through a web application with db hooks or something (many companies doing this already). And secondly, yes, NT crashes and you're touting a product that's dependent on it. 'nuff sed
Next question: You said, "My question to you, since you seem to know everything, is why are companies adopting Citrix's products as industry standards? "
Firstly, I don't know everything, but thanks for the assumption, I'm flattered. To reiterate, Citrix may be neato keen now, but it's not the future like most on this board would like to think. I won't even address the industry standard statement, I can't contain my laughter enough to type.
DUMBASS - You're viewing data now on a website, are you using Citrix to do it?
Let me paint a picture for you (visuals might help you, I did this with retarted kids at my community center). You're a company with data in a database that your users need access to. You currently have a crappy old gui that lets them access it from their local work PC's. Now, they want access from home (surprise). Let's assume the company is connected to the Internet via some service provider using a high-speed line (like a T1 or something). How do you give them access to the data?
Options:
1. Get PC Anywhere and pay for some dial-in lines (or some other solution like RAS and a client, whatever). Very costly and lame.
2. Go buy a Citrix server and configure sessions to use the application. Then distribute the client to all your users and they can magically dialin to their ISP and connect to your shiny new Citrix server to access their application.
3. You can re-write your old crappy gui to be web-based, put it on a webserver and blammo, the users hit it from over the web (wow, breakthrough concept for you, just chill, there's more).
Okay. What's wrong with solution #2? You STILL have a crappy application to support, but now you have to support a web server running another component (Citrix) AND you have to manage to keep your client's Citrix software updated (so much for managing the client easily). And since you're machine is sending keyboard, mouse, and video updates, it's slow. I've used it and your dreaming if you think there's no overhead. Move your mouse and pause, oh! there it goes, it just moved.
Okay, what's RIGHT about solution #1? You got rid of your crappy application which you knew you'd have to do anyway. Let's face it, new db-accessing apps are web-based. Not exactly a new concept. You also have a web server and you tell your clients to use any web browser from anywhere to access the site. With Citrix, in many cases, you need a web browser AND a client to go with it. One more piece of client maintenance.
My point is, you can't deny that applications are moving toward being web-based. By using Citrix to deploy you're non-web-based application, you're using a band-aid.
That's all Citrix is, a band-aid. Not the wave of the future. It's a fix for low-bandwidth and crappy applications. As you will soon see, many companies, like the fortune 100 company I worked for, will get rid of Citrix (or already have) in favor of NOT having to deal with that component in their architecture. It's just another piece of crap Microsoft-tied solution that solves problems now but creates problems later.
So the UN and every ASP industry leader has adopted this technology as the standard? Oh, that's why the stock is about half what it was a month ago. I see now. Was it Nasdaq? Oh, I see, so this company is for real, not just a player on Wallstreet 'cause they throw out every technological cliche' in the book.
Too much information for you to process, I'm sorry. Will try to be shorter and use smaller words for you next time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
