Are Citrix's Linux Strategy and Microsoft's Bear Paw Strategy Related?

In this editorial I’m going to suggest the possibility that Citrix’s Linux strategy and Microsoft’s Bear Paw strategy are related. Specifically, I wonder if this is a “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” scenario.

In this editorial I’m going to suggest the possibility that Citrix’s Linux strategy and Microsoft’s Bear Paw strategy are related. Specifically, I wonder if this is a “You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” scenario. I wonder if Microsoft’s decision to delay Bear Paw until the next platform release of Windows (probably 2007) is a “gift” to Citrix in return for Citrix choosing not to release a version of MetaFrame Presentation Server for Linux.

Let’s dig into this a bit.

We all know that Microsoft and Citrix are good friends. In fact, they’re even having a breakout session at iForum to talk about how great their relationship is. We also know that friends don’t hurt friends, and we know that Bear Paw would hurt Citrix. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be that Microsoft chose not to hurt their friend by delaying Bear Paw.

It’s been widely publicly reported that Microsoft demonstrated Bear Paw to the entire server group at their MVP conference last April. Then, in August, Microsoft made the surprising announcement that due to “resource constraints,” Bear Paw would not be part of R2, but that it would be part of the next platform release of Windows (which is assumed to be Longhorn Server in 2007).

So why does it take Microsoft three whole years to move from a working demo to a final product? If Bear Paw is only going to be things like seamless windows and application publishing, how hard could that be? And if it’s going to be more than that, then why wouldn’t Microsoft release an interim add-on to Terminal Server and RDP for things like seamless windows? I bet that I personally could write seamless windows from scratch between now and 2007, and I’m just one person.

To me, it seems that there is an ulterior motive behind Microsoft’s decision to delay Bear Paw. I wonder if Microsoft is protecting Citrix. If they are, why are they doing this? Some people suggest that because Microsoft gets revenue with every Citrix license sold (in the form of a Microsoft TS CAL), why would Microsoft hurt Citrix? I argue that Microsoft could get more revenue if they made Terminal Server compelling enough on its own to not cause people to have to buy a $200+ Citrix license for each user.

In response to this, other people point out that Microsoft likes Citrix because Citrix has a sales force that’s dedicated to selling their products, so it’s like a “free” team to sell Terminal Server licenses. While this is certainly true, I think that most of the Citrix selling comes from partners. (After all, this is what Mark Templeton says again and again in his speeches to partners.) Therefore, these partners would be just as happy selling consulting services and CALs around Terminal Server as opposed to Citrix, so I don’t think Microsoft would “lose” anything in this case.

So, why did Microsoft give Citrix the gift of delaying Bear Paw? I think it’s for one reason: Linux.

I think that Citrix could very easily port their MetaFrame Presentation Server product to Linux. In fact, several Citrix executives and engineers have said that they’ve done it in the lab and that they could easily make it into a “real” product, but that they’ve talked to their customers and that there is not a significant demand for it.

To me, this is absolutely ridiculous! MetaFrame Presentation Server for Linux is one of the most popular things that people ask me about. I honestly wonder where Citrix gets this idea that customers are not interested. Citrix executives say things like “Linux is not ready for the desktop.”

I believe that MetaFrame for Linux would have huge advantages. Consider this: In today’s world, many IT managers talk about wanting to explore Linux for desktop applications. However, the commitments to entry are too high. What IT manager is going to rip out Windows for Linux desktops? (Like that old saying goes, “No one ever got fired for buying IBM—I think the same thing applies today for Microsoft.) The reason that no one uses Linux on the desktop is because it’s too much trouble and too much of a commitment to something unknown.

Now, imagine for a moment that Citrix had a version of MetaFrame Presentation Server for Linux. Then, a customer could build one or two Linux servers to serve Linux applications via MetaFrame and ICA. They could integrate Linux applications into their existing Web Interfaces, Program Neighborhoods, Published Applications, and Secure Gateways. They could test the waters with one or two Linux desktop applications without “throwing out” all their current Microsoft investments.

From a Citrix standpoint, that would make their product more compelling. I don’t think Citrix should try to compete with Tarantella here. Instead, Citrix can push MetaFrame for Linux to their existing customers. Most enterprise Citrix environments contain multiple farms from multiple locations—why not bring Linux applications into that mix?

Why not indeed. I believe this would be devastating to Microsoft. The last thing that Microsoft wants is an “easy” way for customers to integrate a few Linux applications with their everyday applications. After a while customers might chose more and more Linux applications, and MetaFrame would be the management and access infrastructure issues as easy to manage as Windows.

To me, this sets up a very plausible scenario where Microsoft agrees to delay Bear Paw as long as Citrix agrees to not release MetaFrame Presentation Server for Linux.

Join the conversation

46 comments

Send me notifications when other members comment.

Please create a username to comment.

This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 22, 2004
<a href="http://sourceforge.net/">http://sourceforge.net/</a> boasts 87,777 Open Source projects and over 2/3 of them are Open Source and run on Linux. Only a M$ or Citrix employee could say anything that silly! Ride the wave or go over the falls :-)
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Gabe Knuth on September 22, 2004
If this is the case, then Citrix would end up losing once Bear Paw comes out. By then, it is quite possible that another Linux-based terminal server package will be available. The Linux Terminal Server Project already exists (although from what I've seen, isn't very practical for moderate to large sized rollouts), but three years is a long time, and new players could pop up at any time. Tarantella already has a fairly well-baked solution, and as Linux becomes more Windows-like in it's usability and acceptance, it can only gain a stronger foothold.<br><br>If Citrix waits until 2007 to release a Linux-oriented product, they'll have to compete with these and other solutions that are sure to spring up. If they released it right now, it could be just as the article says - a test bed for integrating Linux Citrix servers that could lead to a massive presence in years to come.<br><br>The technical relationship between Citrix and Microsoft isn't that great (just Google for "Citrix Windows 2000 SP4"), so any relationship between them must be a business one. There is no doubt of the short term benefits for each company, even if those benefits aren't the sole motivation of the Bear Paw / MetaFrame for Linux delay.<br><br>Now, I'm not saying that either company is evil because of this. What I am saying is that I think it's time someone besides Novell stood up and tried to revolutionize the arena, rather than simply letting it evolve while (temporarily) lining their pockets. Conservatism will only stifle and eventually kill the revolutionary solution that Citrix once had.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 22, 2004
Hey Yonderbox, you asked where the apps are - go to this site: http://freshmeat.net/

You'll be able to download over 34,000 Linux apps for free. I am in total agreement with Brian on this one - I also heard rumors that Novell has been actively pitching Citrix on SuSe as well.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by steve on September 22, 2004
I liked your analysis a lot, and developed the point a little in my own blog. It was a great article. http://steves.businessblog.com/blog/_archives/2004/9/22/147759.html
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Brian Madden on September 22, 2004
I'm at the PubForum Munich event right now, and we're talking about this article. Someone suggested that the reason Microsoft doesn't want to release Bear Paw is because in large environments, Microsoft gets a fixed cost per user. Therefore, releasing Bear Paw would not necessarily increase Microsoft's revenue. However, it would require them to support all the crap that they're all too happy to let Citrix deal with today...
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 22, 2004
Citrix offers most of their products in a UNIX favor whether it is WI, SG or MetaFrame. The real interesting play for Citrix would be if they could do something like soft-tricity and MFU so you could potentially have windows applications being served up by MFU or MFL in this case. Just my .02
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 21, 2004
Why does Citrix only push the Web Interface on IIS? A lot of companies won't use IIS in a DMZ. Why doesn't Citrix easily show how to use Linux/Solaris/whatever with CSG and WI. It's because Microsoft wants them to push the Microsoft environment.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Yonderbox on September 22, 2004
It always comes back to the apps. Are there (outside of government and science circles) any compelling Linux apps?
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Brian Madden, from PubForum on September 22, 2004
Another comment that someone mentioned here was that if Microsoft released Bear Paw today, people wouldn't have to spend money on Citrix. That would free up money to spend on the Microsoft version of Citrix's management tools. (SMS, MOM, etc.) That would be even more incentive for Microsoft to release Bear Paw soon.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 23, 2004
If you take it one step futher, and wine would be able to serve all win32 apps, then on combination with a citrix for linux box you could rule out the MS TS engine out of the picture completely.
Best of both worlds. Linux and windows apps served over ica.
If linux stays free, then all of a sudden 250-400$ for a citrix license is not that expensive anymore.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 23, 2004
Not too long ago, it was very true that there weren't many Linux enterprise desktop applications out there. If that story hasn't markedly changed to date, we know it eventually will. I think you'll see Citrix "go there" when corporate customers are rolling out more Linux desktop applications across the enterprise. That means pervasive apps in the enterprise not just spotty deployments. Can anybody isolate the Linux enterprise desktop application count? That is where the answer lies.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Jono on September 22, 2004
LTSP (Lunix Terminal Server Project) and MPS (Or MS Term Serv) are two diffrent things entirely. I think that the name LTSP is misleading...

LTSP does not serve up applications...it is a method of OS delivery to clients. This OS is delivered at boot up via PXE or BootP... After the OS is delivered to the client then thats where LTSP ends... It does not serve up any applications unless you build them into the image that gets downloaded on boot... By the developers own accounts...LTSP is a LAN ONLY solution. Right now I would consider LTSP a serious "niche" solution...
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 23, 2004
Historically every skittish citrix investor was worried about being displaced by MSFT, especially as they advanced on their overtly stated objective of getting closer to the server environment.

If you are right on the new paradigm, doesnt this change the playing field considerably- does ctxs finally have incredible leverage over big daddy, maybe the tables have turned. from a share perspective this has enormous implications...
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 23, 2004
Linux is free. For corporations that is the biggest myth of them all. Linux is far from free.

On another note, what version of linux should Citrix target? Red Hat, Debian, Suse, etc, etc. I agree that pushing out a linux version would be good but it would not do much of anything for them at this time. Yes linux has a large amount of apps but they aren't ready for corporate yet. Windows has hundreds of thousands of programs for it but you would count all of them as ready for businesses. Have you ever tried to install OpenOffice/StarOffice on terminal server? It is not easy. I even have internal Sun doco for it and it's not 100%.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Yonderbox on September 23, 2004
Yes, I've been to FreshMeat, SourceForge. There are some good starts, but I haven't seen anything that looks like a finished product. Quantity is great, but quality isn't there yet.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 23, 2004
I agree Citrix needs to get into the Linux market w/Presentation Server early and define themselves as the defacto standard. For those perhaps looking for a Citrix-esqe Linux alternative you might want to take a peek at http://www.nomachine.com and see what they have to offer. I've played with it some and it's a good start. It's based on X-windows but has been optimized for speed. Not perfect but if your after this kind of solution very much worth a look.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by John Byrne on September 23, 2004
I just don't think that its' worth it to Microsoft to do this. I believe that the delay is exactly for the reason that they say: they are trying desperatly to get the security issues fixed. Anything else would be too much of a distraction.

By rolling BearPaw into the next real server, it frees them from having to worry about it until that point in time.

Oh, you really believe you could do seamless windows, huh???? ;)

JB
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Carlos Sanabria on September 23, 2004
First of all, let me say that is actually possible to publish Linux apps via Citrix. Of course, it would be much better (in the business, technical, effcient, etc.) way if Citrix could run natively on Linux, but *sigh* what can you say, life isn't always perfect.
So the whole trick basically is doing the whole thing Tarantella-style; you will end up with a 3-layer architecture, first your ICA client, next your PS Box (be it Windows or Solaris, although I'd go for Solaris for this scenario...) and finally your Linux box. All you have to do is publish your Solaris X11 Server using PS, which in turn connects via X11 (obviously) to the Linux box. For the user everything is quite transparent and it works like a charm :) (Yes it's not perfect, and you need an exta box, but hey, there's VMWare...)
Finally, I have to afree with Yonderbox, yes there are a gizillion apps for Linux, but how many BUSINESS apps are there for Linux? Most of my customers are insurance companies and I haven't seen yet a Insurance Information System for Linux.... we need to break that vicious circle: not too many companies are developing Linux front-end apps because there aren't that many Linux front-end devices, which not many people are buying because there not that many Linux apps...
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Mark Verhagen on September 22, 2004
Excellent post Brian. Yes, if there was any linux application entanglement possibilities - Open Office would be the cartridge out of MS' desktop side-arm. If people started finding a viable way to run 'primary' desktop applications without pay the fee - wow, MS would be shooting blanks!

Microsoft's desktop operating system is very much sold like their XBoxs - CHEAPER than it cost to make because without giving away the console, how can you force people to buy all that expensive software! MS isn't as concerned about competing OS as they are about losing application revenues...

Gabe - I agree that Citrix would lose out on a chunk of business if they waited 3yrs but bringing in a Linux MF to existing client base under existing subscription advantage offerings instead of trying to sell it seperately (see MetaFrame for Unix) might be the magic formula at this time.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Arthur Doumas on September 23, 2004
I hate to borrow the phrase but it seems appropriate. I have a hard time swallowing the thought that Microsoft is delaying their release as a favor to Citrix. When is the last time Microsoft did a favor for anyone other than themselves. Has anyone forgotten who developed the original multi-session kernel?

As for Citrix, I side with many of you, this is their big chance. Perhaps by providing such a platform to the Linux crowd it will spark developers to really look at developing true "business grade" applications for Linux? I know several companies with IT departments that would seriously consider migrating their custom applications to a Linux based platform if they could continue to utilize Citrix as their method of delivery and management. They are just waiting on the opportunity to present itself.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Harald on September 24, 2004
Looking for a killer app ?

DIA, its a VISIO clone, a good one in my vision.
OpenOffice, No need to explain
Evolution, excelent mail client with free exchange connecter from Novell
Kopete, IM client that support almost all protocols.
K3B, Nero clone
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Claudio Rodrigues on September 28, 2004
Well I guess this is the way to go. We had this done and had to hide it somewhere. But I guess the time to bring it back has come. The potential is interesting as you will be able to use all Win Terminals, Windows PCs and so on and give them applications like OpenOffice, Evolution, GIMP and as pointed, thousands of other applications. I agree in some cases there is no way to avoid the Win platform but in many cases and environments currently using TS, a linux based solution at the back end, that would NOT touch the front end (clients and their PCs/ThinClients), would make sense... Should we release it or not?
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Joey Aguilera on September 27, 2004
Not only does Citrix have MF for Linux ready to go, but (per my sources), Wine is part of the package. It makes little sense to deliver MF for Linux with out Wine.
I have setup and tested MF for Solaris with Wine about two years ago and was impressed and excited at the potential of such a beast on Linux.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 27, 2004
publishing applications in linux using low bandwith protocols already exists, and is available for free.
with scripting all these gets done automatically. gnu folks aren't just onto this stuff or else it would exist already. all the necessary infrastructure is there. And without all the bugs the ctxs has seen over the years on win32 and also on ica-tcp!

and we are talking seamless sessions and all the redirecting your belly can ache for.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 27, 2004
Technical advancement for the advancement pure technology is a suckers bet. I The challenge if for the Linux advocate to take a solid look at Linux licensing models. Take special note to the fact that Linux developers are still looking to make money. The Linux developer community wants the source code for free to turn around and create 'the killer' business application to sell similiar to the Borland incident. Until applications in the Linux world become business enabling solutions that truly deliver on the promise of the Linux theory (free), Linux will remain a social movement of disenchanted techies looking to buck the encumbant.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 24, 2004
Say's it all really, IBM have done the emulation work, so if you want to deliver Linux apps as a trial, try this. Then when you've proven the business case take it to Citrix. All software companies are revenue driven, live and die by their quarterly earnings figures and analyst perceptions. So if there truly was a compelling case outside of our little ubergeek community they would have done it. Business has to put skin in the game and really demand this, not a situation of if you did it we might move over to Linux. Seriously considering a move to Linux is not enough for Citrix to commit to one of the biggest decisions on platform that they could be expected to make. If they do this, they could kiss goodbye to being a source code partner with MS, and where's the revenue in the Linux space where everyone expects everything for peanuts.

Don't forget that Citrix don't just talk to us techies, they deal much further up the chain, and thats where influence on products occurs. If we think it's justified, we need to convince our CEO's etc and get them to push Citrix. That's our way forward to getting a Linux flavour.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 24, 2004
I'm not sure, but isn't this exactly what Tarantella is already offering today?
They can do RDP and ICA and X11 as well...all integrated in one portal.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Steve Greenberg on September 26, 2004
I believe the statement that the demand for Metaframe on LINUX is in fact very low. At Thin Client Computing (thinclient.net) we have deployed Metaframe for Solaris, HP and IBM since early beta versions. Users have always been able to deliver LINUX apps via Citrix simply by putting Solaris, IBM AIX or HP UNIX in 'front' of the LINUX Machine, i.e. LINUX to Solaris via X11 and Solaris to ICA. The demand simply isn't there, we have offered to deploy Metaframe for LINUX (via Solaris) to customers for years with no takers!

Steve Greenberg
Thin Client Computing
34522 N. Scottsdale Rd. suite D8453
Scottsdale, AZ 85262
(602) 432-8649
(602) 296-0411 fax
steveg@thinclient.net

Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on September 24, 2004
One of the many reasons that companies choose to use Microsoft Applications and MS Compliant Applications breaks down to a numbers game. Millions of users around the globe use office, so if that company has problems with thier office installations they can be assured that a $$$ rich, stable company thats not going anywhere anytime soon, as well as countless users groups are available to help them resolve thier issues. I often relate it to cars, you wouldnt go to Ford and ask that they put a Chevy motor in the Mustang that you want to buy.

Companies want reliability out of the applications and OS's that they deploy, Linux does not offer the same amount of CYA ability at the moment to warrant a change from the time tested MS solutions.

Just my 2 cents
Cancel
This message was originally posted by Steve Kaplan on September 28, 2004
Your article brings up an interesting question, but you have some big misconceptions in your underlying premises. Your assertion, for example, that Citrix resellers would just as gladly sell TS if the product had Citrix-like functionality is just not true. In fact, Citrix as an organization provides phenomenal marketing and support for its resellers that enable them to promote Citrix (and therefore TS) as an enterprise platform. Even if TS has all of the capabilities of Citrix MetaFrame Presentation Server, the very different focus of the Microsoft organization would mean that resellers would lose the incentive to promote it. as an enterprise solution. Another point with which I take issue is that the only MS software that Citrix drives are TS CALs. In fact, when organizations migrate to what Citrix calls Access Infrastructure, they end up inevitably purchasing a whole slew of MS products such as Windows Server 2003, ISA Server, MOM, Share Point Portal Services, SMS, SQL Server, etc. Furthermore, organizations that migrate to access infrastructure are far less likely to implement Linux in any form. Microsoft, therefore, has tremendous incentive to continue reaping the high value that Citrix and its channel delivers.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by a new-england visitor on September 28, 2004
A common misconception I often see in the Citrix/Microsoft talk is that there is only one Microsoft. The reality is that internally, Microsoft is a set of fiefdoms. Each VP has his or her own agenda on improving their lot in life. Some of them like Citrix because Citrix helps their numbers. Some of them hate Citrix because they see money taken by Citrix that they feel they should be taking. This is why we have a hard time understanding the relationship – it isn’t one-to-one.

By the way, while I find the Bear Paw/Linux story interesting thinking – I just don’t buy it.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by IT Manager on November 26, 2004
I am an IT manager and thier is no compelling case for me to buy a version of Citrix that runs on Metaframe. Brian, I normally agree with your articles but in this one you are spreading some rumor that you simply do not have any knowledge of. Citrix, is making the right business decision Linux has little to no business value for them. All of this techie talk is bullshit. What is the businees problem that Citrix solves in most shops???? Does putting Metaframe on Citrix have anything to do with solving the business problem Hell no. You people better get a little bit more business savvy then attempting to push Linux every where it has a place but definitely not every where. Show me a business case or please leave the conspiracy theory horse crap alone. Monday morning quarterbacking for Citrix does not cut it. I layoff IT folks with some religious attachment to technology. I want them to be IT/business people if not I can get anyone to load a server but few people to use technology to make a business impact.

Sick of the Religious Techie Bullshit
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on November 26, 2004
Brian - you are a genius!

When MS comes out with their next version of TS - Citrix will overnight lose half of their customers!

If Citrix is smart enough to see the future....they would be developing PS for Linux and put a lot of R & D into this. This would deal a giant blow to the MS Monopoly. When MS delivers the next version of TS - Citrix better be betting the whole farm on keeping ahead of MS.
1) Offer the Conferencing Manager, Resource Manager, Installation Manager, Load Balancing Manager, and Also Secure Access Manager all in one product!
2) Build a PS for Linux as a priority.

Citrix better start seeing MS as the fox in the Citrix henhouse....and the fox is not just interested in the eggs.
This is the pattern and history of MS. Just ask the people who came out with VMWare....and the dozens of other companies like WordPerfect, Lotus, and IBM to name a few.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by an anonymous visitor on November 27, 2004
All MS has to do is to not grant Citrix the source code as a partner/developer when Windows2007 comes out. MS has pulled this trick before and Citrix had to caugh up TS before MS would give Citrix the NT 4.0 source code.
Love MS or not.....it isn't all that simple.....MS is a lot smarter strategically than we are giving them credit for.
Cancel
This message was originally posted by chris on December 7, 2004
facts, or the lack thereof, in this issue asside... it is an editorial and not a news article and should be treated as such. this does not change the fact that MS has squeezed citrix in the past. the announcement that terminal services were shipping with NT5 all those years ago kicked citrix's stock price square in the jimmy (back in 1997). are they doing it now? the wold may never know, but they have done it to citrix in the past, that much we know.

this is what MS does to protect it's platform... it releases features into windows that make it the platform to develop for and not application X... this has happened with java, netscape, instant messaging, you name it. that's what IIS, .net, IE, and all those other things that MS doesn't really "sell", but add value to the windows platform. MS makes money on 2 applications: windows and office. everything else creates demand for those two products.

as for "the linux crowd", the argument for or against linux in the enterprise isn't about technology or business. if someone important enough in a company says to make the move, they will make the move, and reason and logic will go out the window. if the right person says stay with MS, they will stay regardless of the consequences. how many times have you IT guys implimented something that you knew was stupid because "that's the direction we are going"?
Cancel
Seems to me your as much of a Religious Techie Zealot as anyone else the way you spout off about "All of this techie talk is bullshit." I guess if you had it your way, there would only be one OS, one Office program and one computer for all. There goes the free market economy, there goes variety and choice. The technology growth and boom of the last decade wouldn't have even happened were it not for those "religious attachments" that you vehemently despise. I think YOU need to open YOUR eyes a bit!!
Cancel
I agree with this post. MS is getting such a revenue by selling TSCals, Windows XP lics, Office lics etc. from all customers that want to run Citrix on Windows. To expand their development group for TS and create support would probably cost more then they earn of Bear Paw.
Cancel
yet all mis somthing
Cancel
My God! What app would you like, I have 4GB of apps that come with Linux "free of charge" and GB's more that can be downloaded for free and many more that you can pay for if you like. tell us please what you need.

joe
Cancel
I would have to disagree with almost everything you said. We have about 1500 desktops were I work, don't know what you people are waiting on.

Joe
Cancel
ORIGINAL: jwhite5311

I would have to disagree with almost everything you said. We have about 1500 desktops were I work, don't know what you people are waiting on.

Joe


That's 1500 Linux Desktops.

Joe
Cancel
Maybe a vacation and some beer would help :)
Cancel
Your lost in the tall grass man. There are plenty of business and scientific apps for Linux, but no it is not a good decision for every enviroment. I can tell a lot of the people here have never seen a large scale Linux deployment, that will change with time I'm sure.

Joe
Cancel
You are reading too much into what Citrix and MSFT are doing.
Cancel
If only printing worked reliably. Someone is going to come along and get printing working and take all of Citrix's business away. It will probably be Microsoft. Guess who wrote Terminal Services for Windows 2000? Yep. Citrix. M$ should go ahead and get it over with... just buy Citrix.
Cancel
I am using Citrix ICAClient for Linux under Debian Sarge for 686.

I seem to have full access to the server's functions, including printing (I print
to a network resource, as well as directly to PDF files.)

It took me no longer to set up on Debian Linux as it did on Windows XP.

And it works a little better on Linux than it did on Windows XP, partially, perhaps,
because I was able to to tinker with the setup more easily on Linux than on
Windows XP. (Of course, that's the advantage of Linux over Windows anyway.)

After using Citrix on windows XP for a year, I have ditched it completely and now
prefer to run only under Linux.

My company's servers all run Windows. (I'm trying to change that -- go Apache!).

Cancel

-ADS BY GOOGLE

SearchVirtualDesktop

SearchEnterpriseDesktop

SearchServerVirtualization

SearchVMware

Close