Monthly Archives: March 2008

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (Friends or Foes?)

The Future of the PC

For the last few days I have been trying to put together a post revolving around a magazine I’ve kept since 1991. The article is called “The Future of the PC” in Fortune Magazine from August 26, 1991. The article tries to sum up the first ten years of the PC (born 1981) and tries to capture what will happen next. The cover shows very young looking Bill Gates and Steve Jobs sitting next to each other on a circular stairway.

At the time, Steve was at NextStep. There was a bit of angst about what was going on with IBM. In general it was a transition time from pre-Internet to Internet era.

Unexpectedly, I discovered a recent video interview of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs at the D5 conference sponsored by the Wall Street Journal. It was filmed in 2007 and most likely many of you have already seen it. If you haven’t, and are interested in the workings of the industry, it is a must watch.

Between the magazine article and the video interview, a pattern begins to emerge. Bill and Steve have a complex relationship based on what is going on but essentially they are friendly rivals. In the video, it seems evident that there is kind of mutual respect. It is obvious to say that they are very different people with different philosophies as well.

Over the years, Bill and Steve have met on stage very few times.  In fact, I have only found three instances of public meetings since 1991.  The D5 conference last year was the most public and also the most broadcasted on the Internet.  From the D5 video you can really get the gist of their relationship.

Intelligence is a key factor.  Bill and Steve are always trying to up the ante about what they are working on or what they know to be true.  It is important for them to be clear about what their vision is and how it will come true.  Thought is always at the forefront.

The past is a common thread.  Bill and Steve have worked together in the past on the Macintosh project.  In fact, both have fairly good memories from this time.   Perhaps this was true due to Microsoft not being in the GUI space around 1984.  It is also important for Bill to mention that they have been and continue to be allies.  It seems that they agree on this point but there does seem to be tension still.  Obviously Apple wants more of the pie.  Apple also believes that it was first and that it deserves more credit for the pioneering work done.

If you watch the video, keep in mind that Microsoft and Apple are competitors.   Some key messages come across as both try to push their views.  Microsoft is trying to be all things to all people.  This makes sense from an operating system point of view and even suites like Office.  Microsoft thinks that more and more needs to crammed into one device.  The philosophy is that more is always better and that more function is key to wider acceptance.  Apple, on the other hand, believes in specialization.  Apple thinks that the device and software should do one thing really well.  This is reflected in new devices like the iPod and iPhone.  It could be argued that the iPhone is actually many things in one but the point still remains that the pieces fit well together for what people want instead of the extra baggage they don’t want.

This key difference shows the expression of thought of Bill and Steve.  Their beliefs have steered the companies they control.  Because of this, it would be hard for either company to think the opposite of what they do now.

Based on the trends in the market, the pattern is towards specialization.  Instead of being a general purpose computer, the model will shift to specific implementations that solve specific needs.  This is possible due to more focus on customizing software components to work together much like integrated circuits first changed how electronic components were built.  In a way, we are seeing a push back from being so general to being more specific again.  The real power comes from having common components (hardware and software) to do it.  This has been particularly strong with hardware appliances in the networking business but the idea is spreading quickly to consumer markets.

If you don’t need to know how to use a computer to do tasks that are useful, then why not do it?  Other benefits come from not being restricted to having a massive hardware requirement for a massive inclusive operating system.

Getting back to the topic of Steve and Bill, towards the end of the video they are asked what aspect they envy of each other.  Bill responded that he admired Steve’s ability to build the right teams to build the right products.  He essentially also wished he had Steve’s taste in things.  Steve, on the other hand, wished that he had Bill’s ability to partner with many different companies to build successful products.  Obviously both saw these things as weaknesses in themselves relative to the other.

There was no sign of hostility to each other like might have been seen when they were much younger.  They have aged well and certainly are more wise and mellow than before.  There were many quick humorous statements meant to target the other but they both just brushed these remarks off and moved on.  The are old enough not to just react.

Personally I really enjoyed watching the D5 video because it is a true representation of the history of the industry.  These two people have controlled the destiny of two of the most important companies in the computer industry.  These are real men with plenty of passion but who also make mistakes from time to time.  It is a treat to see this kind of view be so public.

In reference to my previous post about the hypothetical entry of Apple into the enterprise market, I must confess that I do not see Steve Jobs going that direction.  The obvious exception is any new devices that he can create that are outside the realm of what is now considered a PC.  He calls it a post-PC environment and I believe his secret is that he thinks that the era of PCs is coming to a close.  Otherwise it would not make sense that he is investing so heavily in specialized devices built on what was learned from the PC era.  I hope this catches the attention of a few people.

He might very well be right (assuming that he thinks this is true in the first place).  Every era must come to an end.  Something better than the typical PC is bound to show up eventually.  Apple has a good shot on taking that on.

The highest chance of success comes from mixing the “Cloud computing” model with the specialized device model.  Steve talks about this in relation to Google.  It is clear that Steve knows the value of this model and the potential market as well.  He gives having maps on the iPhone as an example but it really expands much bigger than that.  It is also evident that Bill is more in react mode than innovate mode when it comes to this kind of thinking.  In fact, it seemed that Bill is largely staying away from the concept of “Cloud computing” and trying to consolidate the power into the PC as it has been since 1975.  Perhaps this is because Bill sees the cloud as a threat and will only invest heavily in things that are known to work well like search.

I would end this post by concluding that Steve and Bill are friendly to each other and have even enjoyed time together but that they are still foes when it comes to the companies that they represent.  If you watch the video, you will know what I mean.

What Keeps Microsoft Up Late?

I was researching an article recently and came across this gem.  The bit I was searching for was an old IBM/Apple partnership.  The outcome was unexpected.

I asked Gates what trend or development had occurred in the technology sector in the past 20 years that really caught him by surprise. His deadpan response: “Kaleida and Taligent had less impact than we expected.”

Gates was referring to two software joint ventures formed in the early ’90s by Apple and IBM that were already fading into oblivion. There was something different in his tone — a biting sarcasm — that reflected a degree of scorn that he seemed to reserve for the Apple/IBM combo. And it was telling.

Microsoft’s worst nightmare is a conjoined Apple and IBM. No other single change in the dynamics of the IT industry could possibly do as much to emasculate Windows.

 I never heard what happened to the joint venture.  It was obvious that it had failed due to a lack of products but there were very little details.

When I first heard about this deal when I worked at IBM, it seemed a bit confusing.  It just seemed like two enemies forming an alliance for the sake of fighting another enemy.  Around 1991, Microsoft and IBM had a terrible relationship based on what happened with OS/2.  IBM was looking for someone else to help them produce the next version of operating system.  Lots of advanced technology for the time was out there.  Unfortunately it did not come together.

Personally my manager had mentioned the “Pink” operating system as an option around 1992.  It was fairly secret but it seemed, at the time, as a decent alternative to the path that IBM was choosing for OS/2.  I didn’t actually check into it but I appreciated that my manager, Barbara Odle, had looked into it.

The article about Microsoft’s concerns is rather revealing.  If Apple were to form a strong alliance with a corporate player and produce corporate software, most likely Microsoft would see this as a serious threat.  What would this entail?  Well, let’s just pick a fictional scenario.

Please excuse the complete implausibility of this happening.

Apple, realizing it needs to open up even more, decides to encourage enterprise software companies to address the gaps of Apple platforms.  First stop, the need to address Microsoft Office and Windows.  Most corporate users stop here first.  Office has to be one of the most popular software packages out there.  As long as Microsoft controls this, Microsoft will continue to justify its rights over corporate environments.

Apple considers writing a set of compatible applications but  realizes this is a losing battle.  It would be possible to use existing open source projects as a base but it will always be a matter of catching up.  Besides that, it would be almost impossible to keep compatibility.

Light goes on and someone realizes that it is possible to write better office applications but users and companies will never accept this unless there is some path away from Office that is acceptable.  Apple would then understand that it needs to invest in some software layer to guarantee compatibility on Apple platforms.

For a sizable chunk, Apple acquires Parallels.  Instantly they now have the ability to run Windows and Mac software side-by-side with plans to include this in the next OS X release built-in.  Apple starts writing the better office applications using existing open source as a base.  Recent Microsoft revelations are used for creating standard documents and using document protocols.  An Apple corporate presence has begun.

Originally the hardware that Apple used was a problem.  No longer is this true.  Windows, Linux, and Mac can use the same Intel/AMD hardware.

Needing to form a strong partnership with another hardware manufacturer, Apple approaches powerhouse HP.  By now, Apple has a strong story with active demos to sell the corporate pitch.  HP, cautious due the power of Microsoft and also due to the strong relationship, initially resists.  However, over time, HP sees the merit of having another player in the field and agrees to produce HP systems equipped with the new Apple platform.  Through an interesting trick, they actually use a Microsoft license at volume along with a Mac license with the built-in Parallels software.  Being that operating systems are no longer exclusive due to virtualization, it is now possible to not have exclusive ownership of the machine like it used to be.  This means that the user will be able to run both Windows and Mac software out of the box.  To the user, they won’t even care most likely as long it does what they want.

To seal the deal and to bring in more credibility, Apple approaches Oracle and looks for a deal.  Oracle has always been mostly apathetic  about exclusive deals.  However, Apple sees databases as being a very important customer requirement.  It isn’t really sexy or exciting, but databases are the lifeblood of many companies.  Apple works closely with Oracle and comes to a new understanding of what it would take to succeed.  Within months, the two companies come to a new understanding and a new energy forms as the partnership grows.   Oracle and Apple stand together at industry events and produce new value to corporations.  An Apple Oracle server is made available (which is probably already there so please excuse my ignorance) which ties into the Apple Office programs using ODBC.  (My sister is the database expert, not me, sorry).

As the investment goes up and more and more companies join the effort, corporations finally see the value of Apple software and begin to cross over.  This isn’t just ads squabbling over features and ease of use.  This is real effort to create a better environment for users by initially allowing them to run what works best.  The new concept in the last few years is that you can run different operating systems together and pick what works best for the task at hand.

The time of exclusive ownership is over.  It’s time to play well together and stop arguing about who is best.  Let the users and administrators figure this out.  The computer environment needs to be more balanced and virtualization is an obvious step towards reaching that goal.

As this story comes to an end, I hope that a few of you were pleasantly amused by the ramblings of a long term “what-if” engineer.

Perhaps the thing that binds closest to Microsoft is its licensing schemes. From past experience, the licenses are relatively cheap, but only in volume.  It creates a situation where a customer will be adverse to change.  There are so many fronts to consider that it would be difficult to storm the wall with much effect.  At some point you just need to start looking for cracks.

 

ClearType and Terminal Services

Did you know that typeface with Terminal Services is usually downgraded from the usual local experience?  Microsoft has the ClearType technology which normally improves the look of text by rounding the edges with different colors giving the characters more rounded effect.

Computer displays in which the positions of individual pixels are permanently fixed by the design of the hardware—such as most modern flat-panel displays—can show strong aliasing artifacts, which manifest as jagged, saw-tooth edges (sometimes referred to as “jaggies”) when displaying small, high-contrast graphic elements such as text. ClearType uses anti-aliasing at the subpixel level to greatly reduce visible artifacts on such displays when text is rendered, making the text appear “smoother” and less jagged.

The technology has been around for a number of years but only recently has become mainstream with Microsoft products having it automatically turned on.

ClearType, a trademark of Microsoft, was first announced at the November 1998 COMDEX exhibition. The technology was first introduced in software in January 2000[1] as an always-on feature of Microsoft Reader, which was released to the public in August 2000. ClearType was later introduced as an operating system feature in Windows XP, where it was kept turned off by default. In Windows Vista, ClearType is turned on by default. In Microsoft Office 2007 and Internet Explorer 7, ClearType turned on by default, even if it is not enabled throughout the operating system. ClearType is also an integrated component of the Windows Presentation Foundation text rendering engine.

It is always good to check Wikipedia first.   The catch here is that Terminal Services has typically turned ClearType off.  At least this was true for Windows Server 2003.

Citrix has announced this in a support article about ClearType.

Symptoms

Microsoft ClearType works correctly inside an ICA session with Citrix Presentation Server running on Windows 2000 Server, but it does not work with Presentation Server version 4.5 running on Windows Server 2003.

Background

With Windows 2000 Server, Microsoft introduced ClearType, a font display technology that improves font display resolution.

In Windows Server 2003, Microsoft have released an update that now enables ClearType support for Terminal Services making it available for Remote Desktop users.

For further information please see Article 946633 The “Font smoothing” feature has no effect in Windows Server 2003 terminal sessions

Status

Citrix is currently working on an update to Presentation Server version 4.5 for Windows Server 2003 to utilize this new Microsoft Update for Terminal Services to provide ICA users with ClearType support.

Please note that Microsoft has only recently allowed this to work on Windows Server 2003.  The hotfix announcement is from March 6, 2008.

Internally ClearType has been discussed several times as part of the XenDesktop and XenApp projects.  XenDesktop received a benefit when ClearType just worked due to it not being Terminal Services based.  XenApp needed the hotfix.  There is one step left and that is to enable ClearType on XenApp for 4.5 and 5.0.  Internal reports suggest that it does not suffer from the change for performance.

Internet Explorer 7 and Microsoft Office 2007 both expect ClearType and apparently Outlook looks pretty bad without it.  At this point it really does not make sense to keep it off if there is no penalty for doing so.

Overall this is a very simple way to make things look the same between local and remote.

Aussie Application Delivery Conference

It is a little known fact that there will be an Australian version of the Application Delivery Conference.  Citrix employees in Australia/New Zealand have been asked to spread the word.

The official dates are May 27 for Sydney and June 3 for Melbourne.

The App Delivery Conference is a full day event being held in two locations – Sydney and Melbourne, bringing together the industry’s thought leaders, top executives, and technical specialists. Our audience will learn about the latest developments in industries most HOTTEST TOPIC – Virtualisation, as well as attend sessions on the entire Citrix product family, informative Sponsor sessions, Partner Exhibition showcase as well some mind-blowing demonstrations, and a peek into future technology from our R&D team.

The Advanced Products group in Sydney always participates in the big shows and usually has a few demos up their sleeves that have not been seen before.  Besides that, historically they have been very involved in the stage presentations.  Certain members, like Adam Jaques, have been famous from their theatrical talents.  Hopefully in the not too distant future I will be able to share a video from a previous iForum event in Sydney.

If you are interested in going, you can register at http://www.citrixend2end.com.au. Most of your questions should be answered by the FAQ.  The most interesting question and answer is:

What is my investment to attend The Application Delivery Conference?

The Application Delivery Conference is FREE to attend, however should you wish to attend our ‘Optional’ Super Sessions a fee will apply (Register your interest in these sessions when you Register to attend).

Usually these kind of things are not free.  At least I don’t remember them being free.  The value of these kind of events is always higher than anticipated since it creates an environment that is a catalyst for better relationships between customers, partners, and of course Citrix.

If you have anything to do with Citrix in the ANZ region, I would advise you to attend.  It is easy to lose touch with what is currently happening and obviously virtualization is a new Citrix story since last year.

Since most of AdProd goes to these events, there is a good chance I will be there.  It is always refreshing to have conversations with people who are either using or supporting Citrix solutions.  Years ago I submitted several customer ideas to the internal database based on past conversations.  Some of these ideas shifted where Citrix decided to head.    It is always more valuable to have an idea match a real business need.

Lisa Wren at Citrix in Sydney always does a good job at putting these shows together.  She sent us a flyer in PDF format about the Application Delivery Conference that is being used as an invitation.

End2End

There you go.  You have officially been invited.  Do not forget to pack warmer clothes since it will be winter then.  Tell them that Jeff Muir sent you.

New and Fresh Change

Gus Pinto has announced that he is now going to work for Citrix.  He and Rich Crusco from Frameworkx.com will officially start work with Citrix next week.  Gus and Rich are Microsoft MVPs and Gus is also a Citrix CTP.  They have ambitious plans to revamp the Citrix community.  I talked with Gus last week and it is very clear that they are serious about making a positive difference.

Their titles are Technology Evangelists.  You ask, what is that?  Gus and Rich respond:

What does an evangelist do?

Hero to the Field. Internally there’s the need to ensure that our worldwide technical and sales divisions are well equipped with great demos, presentation content, and other information so that they have everything they need to work with their customers. We’ll be assisting the Citrix Readiness teams to do just that.

Building an Ecosystem. The first ones building communities on Citrix technology began about two 5 ago, when there was precious little documentation or samples, no books or introductory whitepapers, and plenty of bugs and inconsistencies. Most of them only succeeded through one-to-one support from the product team and field engineers. As we near release of more products, we want to gradually inculcate an ecosystem that can be self-supporting, so that the answers to questions people have are in the public domain. An evangelist can support this by finding the next generation of “rock stars” – MVPs and CTPs as well as others who are broadly recognized as experts, writing whitepapers and other content that sets the stage for Citrix products, putting good valuable technical notes out there through outlets like blogs which can be more rapidly updated than product documentation.

Internal Impact. There’s a strategic aspect to the evangelist role that shouldn’t be overlooked. Like any organization, Citrix doesn’t make the right decision every time; getting the bad decisions “fixed” before they ever appear in a product or announcement is part and parcel of the job of an evangelist – being an internal advocate for customers and trying to help get our strategy right. In some ways, this is the most rewarding aspect of the job – it’s hard to think of another organization or working group outside of the executive leadership that has the potential to effect change across cross-product boundaries to better meet the needs of our customers.

Technical Expertise. Technical evangelists should be credible in terms of technical skill set. It’s not the end of the world if a not the world-class PhD engineer who leaves everyone in awe at the beautifully engineered solutions generated, but a strong developer and deployment background certainly is required. CTEs need to be able to keep several steps ahead of a customer who knows the technology well and has some hard questions to ask, and CTEs need to command respect from others for your grasp of the platform.

Passion. A good evangelist is contagious in their enthusiasm, which means that CTEs stand out to others as someone who has a deep-seated interest in the technologies people care about, and a motivation to see them succeed. Technical Evangelists need to be the kind of person that inspires others.

Communication. Clear and precise in your use of language.

Account Engagement. Identifying showcase partners that have the potential to generate a snowball effect due to their market penetration or the exploitative nature of their work, and giving them day-to-day assistance with their technical and business needs. Probably handle anywhere from 3-10 customers on a 1:1 basis, working alongside their developers and architects to unblock them, as well as running technical deep-dive labs and participating on conference calls.

Flexibility and Multitasking. Juggle ten different projects at once, manage an inbox which is flooded with over one hundred mails addressed directly to you every day, whilst actually getting stuff done, flexible enough to manage own work time, and working long hours when there’s a crunch but preserving a solid work/life balance.

They have a heavy workload ahead of them but it is compelling work and I am certain they are going to succeed in making a huge difference with how the Citrix community operates.

The Absolute Zen of Xen

When I first heard about the XenSource acquisition, I instantly thought it was spelled with a ‘Z’ instead of an ‘X’.  The names are pronounced exactly the same.

I found an interesting XenSource presentation tonight.  It is from a couple of years ago but the points are still strong and valid.

I was just dying to have a post titled with the words Zen and Xen.  It appears that other writers thought the same thing as there are at least two other blog posts with this play on words.

There is one more thing I will add to this wordplay.  Zen is in interesting “religion” that does not believe in ceremony and written texts.  Zen is a branch of Buddhism that believes strongly in the need to reach enlightenment from searching from within.  This is achieved through meditation and mindful acceptance.  The goal is to find enlightenment to bring out the essence of true self.  The document at Wikipedia is much more interesting and accurate that what I protray here.

Using the concept of Zen in a data center is definitely push the intent of Zen.  However, it does still apply.  The thinking would state that you are trying to find the most optimal and balanced use of your data center for the sake of running your business.  XenSource have seen the vision of a truly balanced data center and see that true realization can only come from more insightful software models built on the base hardware.  This implies that people at XenSource are aware enough to realize how much power this kind of thinking has.

The ultimate goal is enlightenment and this means that the data center does exactly as it is meant to do when it is meant to do it.  You can see that virtualization is only part of this story and that having a truly autonomous data center that is running at perfect capacity is still a work in progress.

Strange to have ideas from around 600AD be so strong in the twenty first century.  If I was to commit to a more radical way to express this, I would say that the twenty first century is in need of enlightenment to create more balance and the correct purpose for all things.

User Experience by Brad Pedersen

Last year at the Citrix Solutions Conference in Europe, Brad Pedersen gave a presentation about “The User Experience“. If look at the slides, you will notice that the first several slides cover early Citrix product history. From experience, this kind of background is fairly rare and obviously important to people like Brad since he is the longest term Citrix employee. Brad started in 1989 as one of the founding engineers.

Brad and I share a desire to keep the history alive and to remember where Citrix came from.

I last saw him in Sydney during a Technical Interchange in 2005. We went on a boat cruise around the harbor with the rest of the team. Brad was busy taking pictures of Sydney as the sun was going down. I saw a copy of the pictures later and was very impressed. It was a very fun to see him again.

Brad has a certain insight that you just have to respect. It is good to see that he has stayed with Citrix this whole time.

Flashback: Brian Madden Pushes For Citrix Blogs

Back in July 2006, Brian Madden made a number of recommendations to Citrix about how to make things better.  One of the key recommendations was to allow employees to start blogging.  Before this, Citrix effectively banned employees from blogging.  Even though several people were interested, Citrix had a policy against it.

Brian summarized why it was important to blog:

Citrix is pretty much the only remaining software company that doesn’t let its employees blog. Setting up a blog would be fast and easy. Why would a blog help? It would let the actual employees who are having cool thoughts share them with the industry.

Take Microsoft for example. They have thousands and thousands of bloggers. As an example of what blogs can do, let’s look at the blog of just one group: the Excel product group. This blog shows that Microsoft is a thought leader in the spreadsheet space. They’re talking about the future of spreadsheets, conversations about user experience, getting feedback, etc. If I want to find the “pulse” of the spreadsheet world or if I want to learn about how Microsoft is clued in to spreadsheets, I can do that.

With Citrix? No such luck.

Brian’s line of thinking basically suggested a new model of dealing with the world:

At the CTP meeting last week I was discussing the lack of blogs with some Citrix folks, and one of the responses was, “Well you know, it takes people to manage the blog. You have to make sure that what is written is okay.”

I jumped on this saying, “No, no, no! You don’t get it. Do not edit the blogs!”

The Citrix employee went on to say, “Well, you have to monitor them to make sure that there is no comment spam or profanity.”

Ugh! Is this really the reason that Citrix is not blogging? Of course not. Everyone knows that there are technologies to combat both comment spam and profanity. The real reason that Citrix doesn’t blog is because they’re afraid of letting go, control-wise.

Of course my true fear here is that Citrix will start blogging soon, but that they’ll do a half-assed job and mess it up. Citrix is really good at announcing stuff to quiet the critics but then not really following through.

If Citrix lets their employees blog, they cannot censor or modify what they say. Sure it’s important to ensure that no private intellectual property gets out there, but that’s something the company has to do anyway. I can foresee Citrix coming down on employees who don’t toe the party line, but I’m hoping that Citrix will instead provide raw access to the thinkers within the company.

This was very insightful.  Citrix needed to open the doors and have its employees participate with the market on the Internet.  There was an initial sense of losing control when the blogs first started but once they got going it became clear that it was going to work and would be very useful to everyone involved.

I am bringing this up since I believe that Brian Madden’s insights are still relevant to how Citrix deals with the world.  The new Citrix Blog site has to remember what it is there for and make sure it is meant for a gateway between employees, customers, and the bridges between them.

Personally, I would credit Brian with being the visionary of getting Citrix blogging started.  I would even go so far to give him the title “Idea founder”.

The reaction after Brian’s post was fairly swift.  Within two months the go ahead for Citrix blogging had occurred.  I started blogging in September 2006.  Since then I have submitted almost 200 posts with a fair amount of those related to Citrix history.  I had always wanted to write but really had no avenue to do so.

Looking back, I just wanted to thank Brian Madden for speaking his mind about this.  Without it, Citrix blogging probably would not have started as soon or with such widespread interest.

Citrix Acronym Soup (Legacy Software)

Acronyms can sometimes be quite confusing. Even though I have been doing this for years and years, I always am surprised to find something new. Tonight I was looking for information on Citrix VideoFrame and found something else. Citrix has a web page for “Legacy Product Matrix Table“. This looks to me a bit like a software graveyard.

Now, on the the acronyms.

  • NSC – Notice of Status Change
  • EOS – End of Sales
  • EOM – End of Maintenance
  • EOL – End of Life

This brings us to understanding the “lifecycle” of the software. Citrix has a lifecycle page as well.

There are three true stages:

  1. Mainstream Maintenance Phase
  2. Extended Maintenance Phase
  3. End of Life Phase

Mainstream is normal maintenance. This includes fixing problems and correcting security issues. Extended maintenance is only for doing security fixes. End of life just means that the product is no longer supported.

maintenance.jpg

There is yet another page for Lifecycle definitions. GA (General Availability) is when the product is first released. NSC (Notice of Status Change) is when Citrix announces the intent to eventually stop supporting that release or product. EOS (End of Sales) is when it is no longer possible to buy that product or version of product. In general, there is at least ninety days warning of an impending EOS. This is designed to allow customers to buy more of a designated version or product before it is no longer sold. EOM (End of Maintenance) marks the end of non-security related changes to a release. Typically there is a 12 month warning of a pending EOM. EOL (End of Life) is the end of the road for that product or version. The rule of thumb is that EOL happens six months after the EOM.

lifecycle.jpg

So, the flow is GA to NSC to EOS to EOM to EOL. After that is basically limbo.

Just when you thought you had seen enough pages about this, the most interesting page about the current Product Matrix Table appears. This table includes all the current products and there related NSC, EOS, EOM, and EOL are. The exception to this would be products that are still at the GA timeframe and have not reached NSC yet. For example, let us look at the Presentation Server entries.

presentationserver.jpg

You will notice that Version 4.5 is not listed. Version 4.0 was declared NSC on February 12, 2007. EOS might have taken place on May 15, 2007 (the chart is a bit confusing here). EOM is June 30, 2009 and EOL is December 31, 2009. This translates to being off version 4.0 by the end of next year unless you want to go it alone.

In the past these kind of arrangements lead to controversy. Many customers want support for software beyond what the software company is willing to provide. Microsoft has had issues with this with operating systems for as long as I can remember.

Let’s look at the “Legacy” table to see what happened to VideoFrame.

videoframe.jpg

It only had one release with a NSC(Sep 30, 2001) EOS(Nov 30, 2001) EOM(Mar 31, 2002) and EOL(Dec 31, 2002). It had a fairly short life. I will do more investigation on this fairly mysterious product later on.

Meanwhile, hopefully you are much more aware of the lifespan of your Citrix products and how they are managed from a Citrix point of view. At least you can investigate the pages for yourself now that you have the basics.

If you made it this far, I am going to through up some kind of reward. Hmm… what should it be?

Why not watch TV? Australian TV? Australia has very few broadcast channels (ABC, 7, 9, 10, SBS) but still manages to have interesting content. Some of the channels have been experimenting with publicly broadcasting on the Internet. Just for fun check out the download site at ABC. The ABC is funded by the government much like PBS in America. Unlike the PBS, they never had fund raisers. Besides that, they have great programs for the whole family.

Check out “Enough Rope“. Andrew Denton interviews very famous people with interesting results. Hope that is more interesting than learning about lifecycles of Citrix software.

Two Port ICA

When a Citrix ICA client connects to a Citrix Presentation Server, it either uses TCP/IP port 2598 or port 1494. Port 2598 is used with session reliability and internally it uses SSL with the Citrix CGP protocol. The communication over port 2598 is like a private network link for a small selection of information related to Citrix.

The idea had its original invocation as part of the Secure Gateway project and the Nylon protocol. I briefly worked with Nylon around 2003 while working with the client piece of SG and learned of the bigger project to support Citrix Gateway Protocol (CGP) for standard client connections. Obviously port 2598 is more advanced since it allows for secure communication over SSL and it also has the ability to maintain sessions when the SSL link fails. This is
achieved by using a having a modified version of Apache on the Citrix Presentation Server (XenApp now) that accepts the connections for port 2598. This, in turn, is changed into a connection to port 1494 on the same system. To the user, it transparently works. Internally there is a change-over between 2598 and 1494. The Apache piece acts as a relay and also a point of allowing the session to continue.

Normally on terminal services sessions once the connection is dropped, the session is deemed as being disconnected. This causes a lot of churn and makes it hard to reconnect too quickly. However, since the Apache piece can hold up the connection to 1494 regardless of what the outside link is doing, the session does not need to be disconnected. This makes it much easier to re-establish a link from outside back to port 1494. From a user point of view, there is a good chance that a short term outage will not even be noticed except for the case of input feedback. There was a time in the past that any hiccup would trigger an instant drop of the client with the need for a full reconnect. Even with Auto Client Reconnect (ACR) this was not always a very pleasant experience.

This leads us to port 1494. If you select to drop session reliability it really means that you are bypassing the middleman. There is a good reason to have the middle management but sometimes it is nice just to go straight to the source. Port 1494 is the original design. The history of it I have already told before but let’s go down memory lane.

While working on the TCP/IP option for WinView, I realized that Citrix was going to need a server port number. Initially I would have picked just some semi-random number to test with. Eventually I determined that there was a central authority for giving out such numbers (IANA). This would have been 1994 and still fairly early on this list of supported ports. I asked John Richardson to get us a number from that group. John already had done this before or had some kind of connection with the group. I don’t remember which it is. Within a fairly short time, we had a port number reserved for us and we were told that we could use port 1494.

During the whole time I’ve known about port 1494, I usually remember it as Columbus+2. Of course I don’t have trouble remembering 1494 anymore since it is now ingrained in my memory from being referred to so many times.

Recently a co-worker, Jonathan, sent me a link for all the TCP and UDP ports in use. ICA is listed here at 1494 officially and 2598 unofficially.

There is an old trick to see if a Citrix Presentation Server is listening. Just issue a “telnet [servername] 1494″.  Of course replace [servername] with either an IP address or the DNS name for the server.  If you get a couple of “ICA” strings back, you know it is working (at least at the connection level).  I’ve used this trick a number of times when debugging issues.  Of course it works with PortICA as well but only if you are lucky enough to have an internal standalone version that is always listening.  By default PortICA only listens when a user is coming in through XenDesktop.

In the history of ICA, it used to be much more important to support other protocols besides TCP/IP.  In fact TCP/IP was a relative latecomer.  The other protocols such as IPX/SPX, NetBeui, and even Async have essentially faded away.  It would not have been easy to predict how strong TCP/IP would be circa 1990.  It would be interesting to see if any other protocol (besides derivatives of TCP/IP) will become stronger.   Remember how the 7-layer OSI was supposed to replace TCP/IP?  I still remember my instructors at school professing that TCP/IP was a dead end and that OSI was the way to go.  I guess the real world is not always as practical.

One last interesting point about how the server receives the connection.  Ever since 1997 when Citrix sold Multi-Win to Microsoft, the actual socket is accepted by a Microsoft device driver.  The driver is configured to listen on different ports based on how the server has RDP and/or ICA.  2008 will see the first Citrix device driver in PortICA to accept connections.  This was necessary since PortICA does not use Terminal Services and needs to implement the entire kernel stack to drive ICA.