Quest Software buys Provision Networks! Finally a challenger to Citrix in the app delivery space?

Quest Software has acquired Provision Networks. (press release) Provision's main product, "Virtual Application Suite," is an application and desktop delivery product that's very cool but suffers from the fact that Provision is a small company that no one's really heard of.

Quest Software has acquired Provision Networks. (press release) Provision's main product, "Virtual Application Suite," is an application and desktop delivery product that's very cool but suffers from the fact that Provision is a small company that no one's really heard of. But now that they're part of Quest, this could change.

The market opportunity

The market is right for a real competitor to Citrix in the “application delivery” space. (Or more specifically, the “Windows application delivery” space.) Citrix is huge, slow to develop new features, full of quality-control issues (How many hotfixes have they had to re-release?) and not really in touch with what the market wants (printing and profile management are still big issues ten years later).

Citrix has also grown comfortble not having any competition in this arena. Their Presentation Server product has truly had ten years of being the only option for server-based computing. (Really, their competition was convincing people that SBC was the way to go versus non-SBC. But if you went SBC, you went with Citrix. Citrix has been able to charge any price they want, and you had to pay it if you wanted SBC.)

Now Citrix sees VMware as their main competitor. Personally I think that’s a flaw in their strategy. Citrix’s “application delivery” messaging is perfect. They don’t have to compete against VMware to be successful. I think Citrix is just jealous of the fact that VMware’s market cap is 4x bigger than their's after three months being public, and they're jealous that VMware got 2-3x as many people at VMworld than iForum after just three years. Of course Citrix is a public company, so their #1 obligation is to shareholders (sorry customers, this is the reality of the world in 2007). Shareholders want growth, and Citrix can get more growth in the hardware virtualization space than in the pure application delivery space for the next few years. So is Citrix being true to themselves and their vision by going after XenSource? Does it even matter as long as they grow?

The problem is that I don't view server virtualization as anything more strategic than I view the choice of server hardware vendor. Sure it's "strategic" to some people (like those of us in IT responsible for running all these servers), but just as the business doesn't care what hardware platform its servers run on, it also doesn't care whether they're virtualized or not.

IT is about applications. Applications are strategic to companies. The only reason servers exist is to support applications. Citrix knows this. But for some reason they're chasing this hardware virtualization tangental market.

The time is right for someone to focus on application delivery and to challenge Citrix in this space. I think it will make both companies stronger and customers will be the ultimate winners.

What will Quest do with Provision?

It's interesting that the press release from Quest mentioned them buying the "VDI vendor" Provision Networks. I know virtualization is hot. I know VDI is hot. But the real reason I love Provision is because they bridge the gap between VDI and Terminal Server-based server-based computing. They view their "farms" as collections of resources for delivering applications and desktops, whether those come from single user (VDI) or multi-user (TS) systems. But the press release makes me nervous because I hope that Quest doesn't view Provision as "just" a VDI vendor. (Of course Quest is a public company, so they have the same growth pressures that Citrix has. So if VDI is hot right now, then I guess that's what they feel they have to do.)

I hope Quest will not try to enter the hypervisor or hypervisor management market. Forget the hypervisor. Let Citrix/Microsoft/VMware fight over that. That’s all religious battle territory anyway, and it’s going to be hard for one vendor to convince people to replace whatever they have. Plus the VMware IPO and the Citrix XenSource purchase mean that Quest would have to spend way too much to buy anything in the that space.

Instead I think there's still value in being "hypervisor-nuetral." When Citrix first announced Desktop Server, they marketed it as "desktop platform-neutral." They encouraged people to use blades, Xen, VMware, Virtual Iron, or whatever they wanted. (Yay!) But as soon as they bought XenSource, they renamed "Citrix Desktop Server" to "Citrix XenDesktop" and bundled the Xen-based hypervisor and management into the product. At iForum they said, "Oh sure, of course we'll still support 'other' virtualization solutions," but how do you think that will really play out?

Provision Networks has done a great job in the hypervisory-neutrality area. I hope that Quest continues this. Let the virtualization vendors fight each other over control of a commodity. Instead, Quest can truly focus on the application delivery. The market for terminal server add-on products has got to be in the $600M per year range. (Does anyone have real data on this?) The VDI market will probably be that big somewhat soon too, but in addition to, not at the expense of, the TS-based SBC market.

Quest recently bought ScriptLogic (a company that's exhibited at Citrix iForum in years past). Hopefully they can integrate the ScriptLogic and Provision stuff into a single product. Maybe throw in some printing? (I have to do some further investigation into Provision's stuff here.) Maybe a kick-ass portal to tie together SBC apps and desktops and local apps and streamed app? Maybe tie in with some SSL-VPN vendors to hook application policies into endpoint scans? Maybe look into some solutions for managing disk images? (Or maybe that's too close to the hardware virtualization space? I need to think about that some more.) All-in-all, I think Quest could make a very serious offering against Citrix. Price the whole thing at like $200 or $300 per user and they've got a winner!

The bottom line is that I hope Quest doesn't go virtualization crazy and ruin this whole thing. I still think application delivery has some long legs, and the market really wants a choice besides Citrix. So if Quest can sneak in there while Citrix is focusing on hardware virtualization, a little competition in the space will make everyone better in the end.

Financial Data for those who are curious


Annual Sales: $1.3B
Market Cap: $7.5B


Annual Sales: $1.1B
Market Cap: $30B


Annual Sales: $500M
Market Cap: $1.6B


Join the conversation


Send me notifications when other members comment.

By submitting you agree to receive email from TechTarget and its partners. If you reside outside of the United States, you consent to having your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States. Privacy

Please create a username to comment.

Citrix is huge, slow to develop new features, full of quality-control issues (Seriously? Nine separate releases of the same hotfix rollup pack?),

>> Brian :-) Where do you see 9 seperate releases for the same hotfix ?
I just see that the Read Me has been updated a couple of times

Readme version: 1.8
Readme Revision History

Thanks for the article, interesting read

Ok, it was 8 times, not 9. So eat me.
If we're gonna nitpick, then I'll point out that a version 1.8 release is a ninth release, not an eighth. (1.0 is the first, 1.1 is the second, 1.2 is the third...) :)

But I know that some of those were just documentation updates, so the real number of releases doesn't matter. I was just making the point that they do re-release patches under the same version numbers to fix bugs in the patches. I could've just as easily pointed to any one of the many hotfixes they've re-released, or even the KB article that describes their hotfix re-release naming conventions. :)
Reading the press release I see nothing about app delivery. Instead the press release only talks about "presentation and desktop virtualization solutions" and VDI. The gist of it seems to be that Quest has purchased Provision for VDI, not for TS. If indeed that is the case then Citrix, in fact, has one *fewer* competitor for CPS! (I would say they have a stronger competitor for CDS but CDS is not a real product yet anyway). Sure, Provision already has TS support built in, but the same was true regarding Propero and VMware. Also one has to ask if this is not another case of Sun/Tarantella all over again.
Did I say CDS? Sorry, I meant Citrix XenDesktop :)
Man did you even read the article? That was kind of my whole point in the second part, about how the press release was all VDI and no app stuff. But yeah, I get your point and could see that as an outcome too. For what it's worth, I don't think the Sun Tarantella thing is the same, because it was clear when Sun bought Tarantella that they wanted them for the traditional Tarantella stuff and that Sun didn't care about the TS stuff. It will be interesting to see where Quest takes this.
Not the case at all. Provision is as invested in TS as it is in VDI. That's their real strength. They anticipate the inevitable convergence of TS and VDI into something that neither TS nor VDI is today. That's why we selected them as our solution of choice vs. the other VDI-only players out there who seem to suffer from a serious case of "broker overload".
I totally agree that Provision's vision is a blended solution of VDI and SBC, but that is not the question. The question is whether this is also Quest's vision. The press release is all VDI, so you have to wonder about that. As Brian stated, that may be only because of the way Quest wants to present this purchase to its shareholders. On the other hand, if that is where Quest sees value for its shareholder that is where is will go regardless of where you, the customer, want them to go (this is also a point Brian made). This is exactly what VMware did with Propero (yes, I know Propero's TS support was very limited, but the point is the same).
When I first read the article I have to admit I had to scroll up my browser to confirm this was Brian's writing. I have never seen such a speculative and uneducated piece coming from one of our industry's thought leaders.

Don't get me wrong, I welcome competition for Citrix, especially in the Presentation Server market where it has been mostly uncontested in the past 10 years. But coming out with completely uneducated statements like "but just as the business doesn't care what hardware platform its servers run on, it also doesn't care whether they're virtualized or not", it is surprising to say the least. Of course business doesn't care about platform! They DO care about flexibility, scalability and high availability in app delivery that having a virtualized datacenter infrastructure can provide.

Flaming Citrix for getting into the server virtualization space? It was the obvious step! Most of the people in this forum constantly regretted that Citrix didn't buy VMWare, it was discussed as the natural next-step into app delivery.

Oh well, not a good start for the day, but I certainly hope Brian recapacitates.

> Man did you even read the article?

For what it's worth, yes I did. Sorry for the oversight

> it was clear when Sun bought Tarantella that they wanted them for the traditional Tarantella stuff and that Sun didn't care about the TS stuff

Well you could argue that it's clear Quest bought Provision for VDI and that Quest doesn't care about the TS stuff :)

> It will be interesting to see where Quest takes this

Yes indeed, very interesting
I think Brian absolutely hit the mark! The "business" just wants to go about its own business, so it truly doesn't care whether the servers are virtualized or not, much less whether the server hardware is from IBM, HP, or Dell. Besides, the hypervisor is going to eventually become as ubiquitous and boring as firmware. In fact, the hypervisor will most certainly become part of the server and workstation firmware sooner than later. This means that for some customers, it will make sense to power on a new server and press F10 (or DEL) to enable the built-in "hypervisor" feature. Other customers may not care for it. In both cases, business will go on as long as the apps are made available to the end-users.
Umm, what's wrong with speculation? Brian was offering his thoughts on where Quest/Provision/Citrix might be heading, which could be in a number of ways, as he pointed out. I got the impression that several of these thoughts were hitting Brian as he was typing it up. What's wrong with that? This article never pretended to be a 'this is the future and how things will definitely be' type of article. I happen to disagree with both of you, in that I think that large businesses do care about the platform - at least from a support perspective, but that doesn't mean it's the main issue, or that Brian's article is not what you think it should be. I can't find the flame for Citrix getting into the virtualization space that you mention. Or course Citrix is jealous of VMware's market cap, who wouldn't be? Hope your day gets off to a better start too :D Recapacitates - now there's a word that makes people jump for their dictionary. Thanks for the word of the day!
What are you talking about... There is nothing in the article about Hotfixes and Rollups... Please limit the discussion to the article at hand...

Anyways, Citrix has NOT re-released a Roll-up 8-9 times. They did re-release Rollup 02 (2.0.1) for CPS 4.0 back in the day to fix a bug in the installer. The v1.8 that you're seeing in the Readme is the Readme version, not the hotfix version. The readme does get revised and updated frequently to add more detail.

I will agree, however, that Citrix's QA process has tanked over the last year or so. Too much emphasis on shareholder value and not enough on product quality.
Brian is right on this... Most business don't care if they are running on HP or on Dell Server. They only care about cost and vendor support as these are really the only differentiators between the hardware manufactures. When it comes to virtualization, the same will be true. Given that performance is relatively the same, it will come down to cost and vendor support.
I feel bad for Brian as some idiots are lashing out. If they don't like the Brian's website why are they here?

As for VMware's market cap and dominance, that's about to change if it already hasn't. The stock has been in a free fall since Dell purchased EqualLogic. Yes, I understand EqualLogic is a storage vendor but investors are stupid and only see the word Virtualization. Oracle is set to release Oracle VM tomorrow (for Free) and HP is set to release their virtualization products so we'll see how well an overpriced product will last.
Whoops, found the 9 times reference in the article sorry.

Anyway Brian, you really goofed on this one. CPS 4.5 R01 was released only once. The readme was update 9 times!
I cannot predict stock, or I would have bought VMware stock at the IPO, but I think VMware has realized the hypervisor is becoming a commodity some time ago. That is one reason they started giving away GSX, for example. VMware knows management is where it's at, and their management tools are the best by far. OTOH Microsoft, Oracle and even Citrix do have resources so race is definitely on.
Okay, I didn't read it that way, but I see it now. I corrected this editorial to reflect that.
Not sure what "Mom and Pop" shop you work in, but you clearly missed the point. Yes, businesses do care about virtualization, especially at the Enterprise level. My organization is spending millions of dollars (ATM Fees) virtualizing everything they can get their hands on. And while the hardware vendor may not be as important, the fact is VMware is getting millions from large organizations for their virtualization products and Citrix sees the value of entering that market.

But let's take it a step further. If I can provide a user a virtualized desktop (VDI), with all of the applications that user needs, why would I need a product that can only virtualize applications(CPS)? C'mon guys, think outside of the box...
Recapacitate: To qualify again; to confer capacity on again.

or if you want to break the word down... Re-capacitate.

Capacitate: To render fit or make qualified; enable.

Just in case anyone wanted to know... ;-)
Isn't the word "Recapacitate" above average Citrite brain capacity?

Another sensational headline. Back in September, you put out a headline stating "VMware OnDemand streaming technology will challenge Citrix’s Ardence platform". You got slammed for that, and I feel you deserve to be slammed again for today's headline. I would be willing to bet that Citrix would see this aquisition to mean nothing for their business. Don't get me wrong. This is the first blog I look at in the morning. But, predicting how the market goes from a business standpoint, does not seem to be a strong point of this blog. While some of what you said is true about Citrix, you really took them to task. I would say in the last year, Citrix is reacting very well with a vision for the future of application delivery. And yes, VDI is application delivery. Everything that Citrix has built in the last 15 years is going to be required for VDI. VMWare and Provision do not own the majority of those pieces. Citrix has aquired companies that didn't seem to make sense before, now they make perfect sense. By the way, who in the world is Quest? Have never heard anyone mention their name in the last 10 years. Do we really think that they will understand the vision in this space?

Now, I think Citrix would have given some pause if VMWare had bought PN. I am very surprised they did not. VMWare is missing so many pieces to be successful in VDI. I do expect someone is going to give CItrix a challenge soon, but this is not it. IMHO.

Still love your blog!!
Dear 'Guest',

How's the weather in Ft. Lauderdale?
You're right! Sequoia and a few other missteps suddenly make perfect sense. We just couldn't understand their significance back then.
"Mom and Pop" show... So the technical insults start flying. It's more like "Enterprise". Yes, business care about virtualization, but they don't care about what vendor it is. Sure, they say VMware because it's the only product they know about. This will change dramatically over the next year.

Virtualization also poses problems for large enterprises too. Which department pays for the equipment? Which department owns the equipment. How to do bill back usage to the department? How do you convince one department to let another utilized the same equipment?
I know this is not really hugely relevant to the article, and was mentioned earlier on, but I couldn't resist adding that Citrix do release new versions of key files as private hotfixes, often many times, using the same version number. I ended up receiving seven copies of wdica.sys post-CPS4 R02 - only two version number changes among them too - all in private format. Eventually I got a public version - but that was supported only post-R03 (which had been released in the mean time). The fact that Citrix release hotixes for only the current Rollup Pack is poor - even critical ones. Microsoft don't release critical updates for SP2 only. The problem partly lies in Citrix putting fixes into Rollups which weren't available as individually released hotfixes, and their code tree becomes too complicated. So developers only support the last Rollup. Like I said, not what this article is all about, but multiple re-releases of hotfixes was discussed briefly, and some seemed aghast at the suggestion that Citrix re-released something eight times and were quick to point out that it was only the Readme. At a lower level, for private file hotixes, they do, using the same version number! I asked once why the version numbers weren't changed, and never got a reply other than that the developers didn't bother as it would throw out the version numbers for public hotfixes. It would also be good if they listed the files in a Rollup next to the individual hotfix, rather than listed all together at the end. What were we talking about again?... sorry, Quest, Citrix, VDI etc wasn't it.
I think the guest is right. I didn't get Net6 at all at the time. (I wrote that it was more about the VOIP thing than the SSL-VPN.) Everyone knows that Citrix has made some terrible acquisitions, but I think in general they always work out. Regarding the slamming, feel free! I actually thought about lightening this article a bit before I posted it, but then I thought, "No! This is how I truly feel, so I'll share my thoughts." If you don't agree, I encourage you to post. (As many have.. thanks!!!) As long as everyone knows that I'm sharing my honest thoughts (even if people think they're slam-worthy), then I'm happy!
Encarta definition of "editorial":

"an article in a newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of it's editor or publisher"

Brian conveys a few opinions about what this acquisition means to the industry and everyone is acting like he's challenging the existence of God or claiming the Holocaust never occurred or some such religious arguments. Sheesh! Personally I think the acquisition of Provision is just what they need to get some additional funding and recognition. I just hope that Quest doesn't somehow bury this technology or make it all about VDI as Brian is concerned.

Absolutely - this is simply an article conveying Brian's initial thoughts on this acquisition. Maybe people hope to be told categorically what's happening, so they can simply take it away and show their bosses safe in the knowledge that it is definitive and de facto. Maybe they should be able to read someone's views on something and align or compare it with their own thoughts, and not argue against points being made and acuse the article of being something it wasn't intended to be.
Look at the market cap dude. If Citrix can establish themselves over the next year or two as the number two hypervisor, what does that do to their market cap, UP. Of all the pieces in the pie, who has more of them, VMWare or Citrix? Citrix, so more reason to question is the VMWare market cap based on Hype, I think so. Quest, well so many fingers in so many pies and unclear what they really do. So great, catch on to the VDI hype and boost share price, and eventually aim to build something of value. 100% agree that teh hypervisor will eventually become a commidity and it's about the apps. I don't see anywhere in the Citrix messaging that they disagree. At iForum a key concept they pushed was the apps need to seperate from the OS as a best practice. What does Quest\Provision offer there...... Softgrid, give me a break. So Citrix offers me a remote access solution, CPS, CDS, App V (badly), policy, Netscalers etc. So really Brian, not sure what all the fuss is about. Provision sold out, VMWare obviously is not interested/don't get it and now the world moves on. Don't see this impacting Citrix at all, just validates the space further.
I hear you, but I think you need to consider that Provision can position themselves to better manage both the Xendesktop and VMWare VDM stack than what either offer today. So why they bother to compete, when they can just offer better management of the whole stack on both solutions.
I was very amazed at first what Quest is doing, but then i take a good look their product portfolio. Now they have Visioncore (Virtual Management), Scriptlogic (Desktop Management) and Provision (VDI and TS). To me is seems like they are building real competition to Citrix. Take a look this (CIMS and go VDI like Ardence) . What they are missing is software virtualization (Thinstall?)
Dude, well said! But with Microsoft acquiring Softricity, software virtualization will quickly become an integral part of the desktop O/S. I think it would be smarter for Quest/Provision to build value on top of SoftGrid, as well as to expand into areas that Microsoft hasn't touched or won't be touching in the foreseeable future.
I just also noticed that Quest allso own Invirtus, i think that they building a "new" company around VDI/TS addon / Virtual Machine management/add-on. Now Citrix tied it's future to XenSource, Microsoft and VMWare need ISV like this to enchance their products.
Brian, et. al,

As someone just getting into the comprehensive systems management space - (Datacenter, Server and Desktop), please enlighten me as to why "More is More". I thought I understood SMS - SoftGrid, Altiris-SVS, VMware-Dunes, Citrix-Xen. Now, with Quest, I am simply getting more confused as what my options become for streamlining my company (Fortune 1000).
Thanks. - jason m.
More choices?
Another company that QUEST acquired in 2000 'Foglight'. looks to me that it has some 'Edgesight' like capabilities
and I know Quest and CITRIX have done some work to gether in the past to marry Foglight and Quest together...

blurb from PDF

'Quest Foglight and Citrix EdgeSight
Complete Visibility of the IT Stack from an End-User Perspective
Quest Software and Citrix have teamed to bring customers complete visibility of the IT stack from an enduser
perspective. Quest delivers an application and services management solution called Foglight, and
Citrix offers Citrix EdgeSight™, which delivers comprehensive, end-to-end performance management for
Citrix Presentation Server™ environments. Foglight complements EdgeSight and focuses on monitoring and
diagnostics across all components of an IT stack, including end users.'
Provision are already fully supporting and integrating softgrid
I think we should all be worried if MS is trying to lock us into their products. Softrgrid needs real competition to force MS to innovate or get out of the way. Appstream with a virtualization play from Thinstall or Installfree would be a great combination. Even better if they leave it open so that standard ESD systems can interoperate with then great. MS wants you to buy SA, slow down innovation, not offer great features like no client. They are brain dead. They killed a great idea when Softricty has aquired. Citrix don't have the balls to do something in this space so not to offend MS. They could make Ardence so much better if they offered OS and App streaming with virtualization that was really world class. Perhaps people like Provision with Quest can keep innovating and getting us what we NEED. MS doesn't get it. They hate VDI, and want us to stay with fat desktops.
HAHAHAHA . that is SOOOOOO weird ... I had a meeting with my local VMware rep last week to discuss specifically VDI. At that meeting, i told him that their Dunes Acquisition (the VS-O piece made sense, the VD-O ... not so much) was probably ill advised and that their silverstone product (integrating Propero and VD-O pieces with home grown software) SUCKED even in beta. My comment to them at the time was that Provision owned this piece. Literally you can make a case for best in class and with the functionality that they are trying to build into the 5.9 product, VMware should hurry up and purchase them outright before someone else does (my guess was Virtual Iron at the time). My feeling at the time was that Citrix's purchase of Xen would accelerate their competition and would like any current Citrix customers into the Xen hypervisor.

VMware totally missed the boat on this one and now will have to play serious catch up in the broker space. With their hypervisor going embedded, they have a serious, serious edge in the virtualization market. too bad for them ...
Completely agree that servers are not strategic, but I don't quite understand why people think server virtualization isn't related to applications. What do you think is running on all those servers? Seems like this view is mainly an artifact of one vendor (VMware) defining the space and having a somewhat limited vision. In the other areas of virtualization, the categories are generally named for the sw part that's being virtualized since that's where the real value is, not the hardware that's being abstracted away. The value of "server virtualization" is really in freeing up the data and logic tier of apps so they can be managed independent of the servers. If Citrix bought XenSource to go into the business of server consolidation, it was midguided. It seems to me, however, that they get the fact that "applications" are more than just the user tier. If they're going to be in the business of delivering applications, I would think that should extend from the data/logic tier of apps in the datacenter out to the desktops that apps are delivered into.
First off, hats off to Provision Networks and congratulations to Paul and Peter. They had a) the intestinal fortitude to part ways with Citrix, b) the vision to see that Citrix was going to marginalize their ecosystem partners, and c) the ability to execute a brilliant strategy which made them one of the hottest companies in our space, and led them to a handsome payday. To quote Brian "Provision has done a great job transforming themselves from just another terminal server add-on to a leader in the virtualization space." Why haven't any of the many "ankle biters" out there figured this out yet? I'm talking about companies like Tricerat, Uniprint, Thinprint, Appsense and the rest of the bottom-feeding "friends of Citrix." Haven't you seen the writing on the wall? You are not strategic. Citrix will build it, not buy it. Maybe you didn't notice Brian's earlier post that Citrix is working on a print server? That's just one example. What will happen to you when Citrix builds more into CPS or on the off-chance buy one of you? Innovate or become extinct. Provision did and they were rewarded. Many kudos to Provision Networks!
Citrix is jealous of VMware? Come on Brian, you can't be serious.

First of all, a lot of people have to agree before a company spends $500 million, so that would require a lot of people to all share the same jealousy. Not likely. Someone, not a slave to their own emotion, would have to say, "why the heck are we doing this?" and challenge the jealousy.

Secondly, to say it's just jealousy of VWare completely ignores what VMware has been doing to Citrix over the years. I.E. Recruiting Citrix's SE's with bigger salaries only so they could use the SE's knowledge and presence within Citrix customers to sell their own stuff to Citrix's customers... which includes proposing VDI as an alternative to Terminal Services.

One could just as easily say that VMware was jealous of Citrix.
Can the profanity, dude. You may not be a fan, but there's no need to trash any company like that.
That's true. It's really about virtualizing app workloads. Competing against VMware will be a challenge, but I think Citrix has the right strategy here. I doubt very much that it was about jealousy.
Shitrix! LOL - You forgot about XenShort :-)
If those Citrix employees were happy where they were and were appropriately paid for their talents, they would not have left. It's a free economy and employment is at will. Besides back then, VMware had no VDI and hadn't even't thought of it yet. And if I remember correctly Eschenbach told Montserrat that he had bigger problems than VMware recruiting his people - Citrites were flooding the VMware job boards with resume submissions on their own. They wanted to be part of something exciting not stale or moldy.
As a Citrix employee, I don't agree. 6 months ago I considered going to VMWare. Was not about money, just wanted to be in the hottest space. But to be perfectly honest, I was offered to interview with them within the last month and had no interest. Not because we bought Xensource, but I believe they have the right vision for the future with all these products. At the server level, they will penetrate the market and build market share. At the VDI level, not much talk here, but believe they will come out the gate as number 1 in the VDI space with Xendesktop. We have to remember that only CItrix knows how to address the desktop delivery market. For 15 years they have been building all the features, organizations will demand on a delivered desktop. VMWare is a hypervisior technology company. They do not have the slightest clue what it will take to deliver these features, and just missed their biggest opportunity to play in it with Provision acquisition. They need to buy Quest now. So I agree with your post in the past, but I now believe that Citrix is poised to be the most exciting software company out there for the next 5 years. The koolaid is tasting good.
Hadn't even thought of it yet??? Excuse me, but VMware did not conceive VDI. "Oh, people are actually doing that?" was VMware's reaction when they first heard of companies hosting desktops on ESX. To this day, they still haven't got a clue how to go about it.
Thanks, but would you please not use our names and this kind of language together?
Quote: "And if I remember correctly Eschenbach told Montserrat that he had bigger problems than VMware recruiting his people - Citrites were flooding the VMware job boards with resume submissions on their own"

Doesn't matter if Citrites were flooding the VMware job boards... if VMware was recruiting Citrites, as you point out DID happen, then that's evidence of both VMware's method of operation and their view of Citrix's talent. One could easily equate that kind of behavior to "jealousy".
With mounting stock price, I am sure the margin story for the VMWare Sales guys is a great one.
Monserrat - a great leader; tough but fair

Eschenbach - one of the most arrogant people in the business, will get his come-uppance for all the partners he has screwed and the arrogant sales culture he has cultivated.

Says all you need to know about the differences between these two companies.
I assure you this applies to Monserrat more so than Eschenbach. Monserrat is the biggest pu55y-a$$ piece of cr@p Citrix has ever known. I recently spoke to a former colleague at Citrix who candidly told me that Citrix is still the same mismanaged company that it was right back when I left a few years ago.
Sounds like sour grapes from someone who couldn't cut it.
Define irony.... it takes a pu55y-a$$ piece of cr@p to call someone else a pu55y-a$$ piece of cr@p.

I'm sure Citrix is glad they don't employee your unprofessional behavior any more. In fact, given your choice of words, I have a good idea of who you are... and good ridance.
dude, get with the program. Presentation virtualization = terminal server, just sexier!
The home page says 57. This page says 49 (no, I've not bothered to actually count)

The big players will never allow quest to be more than a minor distraction. To compete directly against those guys, Quest better plan on raising more tens of millions of dollars. They are simply not large enough to compete, I don't care how good that crap might be. They don't have the industry behind them, i.e. all the existing relationships that make the whole channel work. They risk alienating large swaths of the industry because they have to position against what is being sold and delivered.

Sure, it  is *possible* for them to make a dent. But most people will strick with the big players, (even after going through many tests and analyses just because quest is there knocking) yet ultimately quest becomes another bit player on the sidelines. (think Ericom. So many customers use Ericom simply as a price reducer, they have NO real desire to leave Citrix) And then IBM buys them for some reason or another and more $$ changes hands, without necessarily providing any value to the consumer.