There are so many topics related to computers that it is difficult to cover all of them, even in a full and diverse career. Obviously some are more important than others while others can be safely ignored.

In my own career, I’ve come across issues with user profiles quite a few times. During my two year tour of duty as a reseller, it was quite often a problem area. As a user, I get to experience the flakiness myself.

Probably the most annoying problem is when things are forgotten. This probably happens due to corruption with a reset to a known default profile state. For the most part it seems to be more of an art than science. It seems like such an easy topic but once you throw in the potential for multiple uses concurrently, there are bound to be complications.

Specific companies have formed businesses around these problems. AppSense and Sepago come to mind.

Anyways, the point of sharing this with you is that I found some interesting web pages related to this topic and it seemed like a good idea to post them here. Hopefully I can add some more value after having handed these links to you.

The first is a tutorial about how to deal with roaming user profiles and folder redirection. It is actually more like an article but it reads like a tutorial. From this you should get the basics of what is going on and why you would want to do this in the first place. The key message is that roaming profiles give you the ability to move users around (with their preferences and files) while still being able to perform well by offloading certain folders (like My Documents) to network shares.

The three biggest drawbacks to roaming profiles comes from concurrency, load time, and a lack of customization for the host computer. The concurrency problem can lead to corruption or lost configuration. The load time is based on bloated profiles over relatively small network links. The customization is difficult based on the fact that each computer is going to be different with regards to what it has installed. The load time can be alleviated by using Folder Redirection but it should not be thought of as a panacea. The Folder Redirection only works with five folders anyways so you are bound to still have issues with other locations. The concurrency problem is much more difficult to solve given the simple rules that Windows uses to store the profile during logoff. Basically the last writer wins. Things really get messy when you have two writers at once. It is bound to happen eventually and is much more likely in a server based computing environment.

AppSense has a Windows User Profile Management whitepaper that covers these very topics (and more). It’s always good to see companies that have thought long and hard about such problems and have come up with good solutions.

Microsoft obviously cares about this and has provided documentation about Folder Redirection. It does seem odd that they have not addressed the weaknesses of User Profiles. Perhaps I’m just not aware of any recent improvements. If you skip up a level in the Microsoft documentation, you will find yourself at “User Data and Settings Management“. From here you get the whole view and can easily pick which area most interests you.

The value add I can give you is that it is important to realize that user profiles, even roaming ones, do not guarantee that the user will be able to run the same applications from machine to machine. In fact, unless the machines are deployed the same way, it will be virtually impossible to guarantee that the user will get any access to the applications from their normal desktop. This issue becomes more important the further you roam away from the data center. In the wild frontier, no one can hear your screams when your profile arrives but you cannot do anything with it.

In this way, user profiles can actually hold you back. Unless you stream the applications, you have little hope of starting what you really want to do your work. From this perspective, user profiles are really only half of the battle. The rest requires transporting the applications in relation to the user profiles. It seems like an obvious distinction but yet most users would assume that since they got their desktop preferences that they also got their applications as well.

Well, perhaps in the next version of Windows they will include some version of application and desktop virtualization which allows for full portability of the whole desktop. It will certainly be a good day when that happens.

Feel free to add any angst value to this topic. What kind of troubles have you had? What worked for you? What do you wish would change that is out of your control?

Given the experience of working on PortICA (XenDesktop) to support the clipboard transactions, there were many new ideas of how this could be handled.  The primary idea for improvement is to support more clipboard formats.  Currently the range of registered formats that can be supported is fairly small.  This leads to either a undesired copy and paste result or even nothing being transferred at all.

Another angle is to improve the clipboard using new Vista APIs to avoid the problem where the clipboard hook gets replaced by a newcomer (when it does not chain properly).  Essentially Microsoft has solved this problem with Vista and RDP.  Now would be great time to extend it for ICA as well.

The registered format that just begs to be supported is HTML Format.  It is used with Internet Explorer and Office and does a good job of capturing the look of the page.  The bad news for our clipboard support is that the text content can point to local files for images.  When the data is sent to the client or the other way around, the local files are not accessible and therefore the image does not appear.

The clipboard code has roots from around 1995 and is due for a bit of a makeover.  I did some work on it during PortICA based on issues but it is clear that it needs more.

While testing massive copy and paste operations it became clear that the clipboard driver needs to provide some kind of feedback to the user about the transfer.  Otherwise it just sits there and does not update the screen even when things are selected or attempted to move.  It looks like it is dead but it isn’t.  Some kind of progress indicator would do wonders.

I’m posting this to gauge interest.  I’d like to forward any new information for the next release of XenDesktop or XenApp.  I’d love to work on this myself but I’m already looking at another project.  I’m just trying to wrap up some of the outcomes of PortICA work.  Either leave a comment or send an email based on the about page.

Citrix has had many different promotional phrases over the years. Around 2000, the most popular catch phrase was “Digital Independence”.

The phrase was first introduced by Ed Iacobucci at iForum 1999. By itself, the concept does not mean much. However, based on the description from Ed it was destined to become a very important initiative from Citrix.

In a rousing keynote address this morning, Citrix Systems Inc. founder and chairman Ed Iacabucci set the tone for the two-day conference with the catch-phrase: The Age of Digital Independence.Digital Independence is a simple concept: Users get the applications they need from any client, from any server, over any connection, when they need them. This means they get access to their applications and data over LAN, WAN, dial-up, or wireless media when and where required.

It’s a simple idea, but one that has proved elusive until now. However, Iacabucci notes some impressive statistics that seem to say Digital Independence is near.

There were a number of changes made to try to make Digital Independence real.  Of these, perhaps the most successful was NFuse (Project Charlotte).  NFuse would later be called Web Interface.  With NFuse, it was possible to provide applications through a web page.

Following Iacabucci’s “vision thing” address, Mark Templeton, president and CEO, demonstrated two new technologies the company is working on to deliver applications even more transparently. Project Charlotte has resulted in technology, now in beta, that Web-enables Citrix MetaFrame capabilities. For example, with the technology, Citrix’s now-familiar Program Neighborhood can appear inside a browser. In effect, it becomes an application portal on intranets, or accessed through the Internet. One of the applications Templeton demonstrated was Citrix Videoframe, which plays video in the browser on the Citrix environment. This will be announced later this year.

Obviously VideoFrame failed to address the market.  Another area that didn’t do well was the ASP market.  In fact, many of the ventures from Digital Independence did not hit the mark.  Having a Unix version of MetaFrame never gained much attention.  The Vertigo project never matured to the point of acceptance.  It was supposed to provide a simple framework for writing web applications which were “richer”.  This really didn’t make much sense then or now.

Strangely enough we are about to encounter the second phase of what was called the ASP market.  Now that major players like Amazon and Google are providing services on the web, it would be possible to re-examine providing applications this way.

If you would really like to get into the details of what Digital Independence was all about, please read the Aberdeen Group Strategy Profile for Citrix’s Digital Independence.

My overall conclusion is that this initiative just started too early.  Several different markets simply were not mature enough to bring all of this to reality.  Also of note is that Citrix was just too young at the time to understand the scope of what it was trying to accomplish.

It was good that Citrix was willing to take risks to get this to happen.  Even though the full vision did not take effect, certain pieces were pivotal to Citrix success in the future.

It’s interesting to observe that the strategies that failed could be classified more like being a fox than a hedgehog (from Good to Great).  Things like Vertigo had little chance of success.  It had very little to do with our core business.

In 1999, Citrix released a product called VideoFrame. This new product was designed to make up for the audio and video shortcomings of server-based computing. In essence, it was an early audio/video streaming server. As good as it sounded, the product failed. By the end of 2000, the product was written off. The company that started VideoFrame was VDOnet which was acquired in July 1998.  The filing with the SEC explains what happened:

Acquired technology associated with the APM and VDOnet acquisitions were written down in the fourth quarter of 2000, as further discussed below under. “– Write-Down of Technology.”

VDONET

The in-process research and development acquired in the VDOnet acquisition consisted primarily of one significant research and development project, ICA Video Services. This project allows video applications and applications containing video to be viewed on an ICA client, and was targeted for the server-based computing market. At the date of the acquisition, VDOnet was shipping a client server video streaming product that was not operational in a Windows NT or in a MetaFrame environment. VDOnet was in the process of modifying its software to be operational in a Windows NT environment. In addition, VDOnet was developing enhancements that would provide for a live camera feed and multicast, which was intended to direct a video stream to multiple client devices simultaneously. The Company estimates this project was less than 65% complete at the date of acquisition. The aggregate value assigned to the in-process research and development was $2.4 million.

Following the acquisition, the Company continued the process of modifying the VDOnet software to be operational in a Windows NT environment. Subsequent development efforts resulted in the VideoFrame 1.0 product, which was shipped in the third quarter of 1999, but has resulted in few sales to end users. Since the acquisition, the Company explored alternative uses for the acquired technology. These uses related primarily to delivering video applications in a server-based computing environment and video streaming with ICA devices. Currently, the Company has no plans to further develop this technology.

Further down, it becomes very clear:

In July 1998, the Company completed its acquisition of VDOnet Corporation Ltd. The acquired core technology consisted primarily of the ICA Video Services project which allowed video applications and applications containing videos to be viewed on an ICA client. Subsequent development efforts resulted in the VideoFrame 1.0 product, which was shipped in the third quarter of 1999, but has resulted in few sales to end users. Since the acquisition, the Company has explored alternative uses for the acquired technology. By the third quarter of 2000, the Company was exploring uses related primarily to delivering video applications in a server-based computing environment and video streaming with ICA devices. In the fourth quarter of 2000, the Company reviewed potential modifications to its cash flow projections based on alternative uses for the technology. As a result of its evaluation, the Company did not believe that there were sufficient projected cash flows to support the carrying value of the core technology. As a result, the Company recorded a write-down of $1.8 million, representing the net book value of the VDOnet core technology as of December 31, 2000.

The fate of VideoFrame was sealed. It would take another 2 years to die completely.

The idea to support audio and video much better was sound. Based on the evidence, it appears that this product was just not mature enough to actually do it well. Audio support already existed with MetaFrame but it would not be until RAVE (SpeedScreen Multimedia) appeared that video would be possible.

It has always been difficult to get decent audio and video support in all scenarios. The basic problem is that streaming solutions expand the payloads before the client has a chance of getting the audio/video data. RAVE solved the problem for Windows Media Player by sending the data to the client without expanding. Unfortunately this did not include all video players. Work now being done with Apollo hopes to address more players.

Much of this works just natural evolution. Things are gained from past experience, especially if previous products fail. The hope is that eventually certain issues will become extinct.

]]> http://citrixblogger.org/2008/06/09/citrix-videoframe-10/feed/ jeffreymuir http://citrixblogger.org/2008/06/03/ghost/ http://citrixblogger.org/2008/06/03/ghost/#comments Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:59:51 +0000 jeffreymuir http://citrixblogger.wordpress.com/?p=276

Have you seen a G.ho.st? No, not the backup/restore software. This is a service from Ghost Inc that provides a web operating system to you from a web browser. The category of service/software is called WebOS. The idea is that you can access your virtual desktop from anywhere that can run a web browser.

Inside this environment you can run similar things to what you would find in Windows. You can work with media like music, video, and office documents. It looks very similar to the standard Windows layout but uses web software instead. It is mostly based on Open Source modules.

There was a demo of G.ho.st at D6. You can also try it for free at G.ho.st. You can even watch an introduction from Founder and CEO Zvi Schreiber.

G.ho.st should be seen as a disruptive technology since it has the potential to upset the traditional Windows desktop model. It allows the desktop to be highly portable and based on a service which is constantly backed up and maintained. It also is using Amazon storage which is incredibly cheap. They currently advertise that the service costs nothing to use. You get a total of 5GB data and 3GB mail.

I tried it out a few months ago and was impressed with what it could do. It was more responsive than expected, even coming from Australia. It still has a ways to go before it will fully compete with Windows but this is the nature of disruptive technologies.

Wikipedia has an article about G.ho.st and one of the surprising aspects is that Ghost Inc is actually a joint Israeli/Palestinian venture.

I’ll leave you with a clip from the G.ho.st web site that explains the purpose of G.ho.st on the Internet:

Windows, MAC and UNIX are all successors to operating systems that were designed in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, long before the Internet was even dreamed of. For three decades, it was taken for granted that an operating system runs on one PC and each user’s data and apps are walled in by that one physical PC. Each of us had to worry about administering our PC - backup, anti-virus and software upgrades. When we got a new hard disk or PC or a new version of Windows we each had to spend hours migrating our apps, data and settings.

Recently with the advent of the Internet and broadband connections, people have started to move some data and apps onto the Web cloud - Web mail, Web photo albums and more recently Web documents and spreadsheets. Now the data and apps which are on the Web are available from everywhere, but new problems arise. The Web applications lack an operating system and are consequently inconvenient to use - each application has its own URL, its own username & password, its own file system and folders and its own look-and-feel.

G.ho.st was founded in 2006 and launched in 2007 to address this need by providing a hosted web-based operating system that works with third-party web-based software. In many ways G.ho.st is the first true revolution in operating systems since the introduction of graphical user interfaces in the 80’s .

This is another post which is probably obvious but hopefully not. If you would like to look at Citrix annual reports from 2000 to 2007, please visit the Annual Reports page. Years ago I learned that the most interesting statements are made related to risks. Competitors are clearly identified and potential pitfalls are revealed. It is also written how much the executives are compensated and how. For any serious investor it is important to examine the details. It is also good for employees to better understand the bigger picture.

This is probably fairly obvious but maybe not as obvious as it should be.  If you would like to find online Citrix documentation, go to the Product Documentation Quick Links.  Everything that is available looks to be here.

One of the most popular links would be Presentation Server 4.5 and Components.  It looks like the documentation isn’t going to change to XenApp until Delaware ships.

The page with all the documents is updated regularly so it should reflect any recent additions.

Pat Helland from Microsoft gave a presentation last year at TechEd in EMEA called “The Irresistable Forces Meet the Movable Objects“. I received a copy from Kala at work. Not long after reading it I wanted to find out more. This lead to finding the video version. Click on the link with the videoid=706 tag. You will also need to sign on with a Microsoft passport ID (hotmail id works).

This presentation is compelling not only because it includes lots of trend analysis but also because it answers questions to problems that are only beginning to happen. Pat had worked for years for Microsoft before going to Amazon. Only recently he has returned to Microsoft. I believe the experiences from both Microsoft and Amazon has helped him reach some unique insights.

I highly recommend either watching the PowerPoint presentation or the video. The video has the extra bonus of including an internal Microsoft video about devices and the cloud. It almost is ad quality but reveals how Microsoft has invested heavily in their perceived future in the cloud computing space.

Ever wonder why the CPU clock rates aren’t going up much higher? That question is answered towards the beginning. The speed curve is supposed around 3.8 GHz in 2009 with the slope getting flatter. The reason is that the performance of the CPU is impacted by heat and the amount of power needed for that speed. The hotter the chip, the more power it takes to operate which leads to more heat. The smaller the transistors, the more power that is needed. The faster the frequency, the more power is needed. The smaller and faster you get, the more power you need and the hotter you get. It is a good example of diminishing returns. As you go further and further, the heat and power grow exponentially without much to show for it.

Pat predicts a 10% speed gain maximum per year over the next several years.

Memory continues to support a latency of around 60ns for retrieval. There does not appear to be anything that will improve this in the near term. The processors always want more data but the memory relatively slow.

The size of transistors will continue to shrink. Currently we are at 45nm with a projected size of 8nm in 2018. This translates to having many more cores per chip. Currently we can have 8 cores per chip but it projected by 2018 we will have upwards of 256 cores. By having multiple cores is a way around the frequency limitations. The idea is to give multiple engines to drive the applications which will make the applications run faster as if they were on a faster single processor. Another possible trend is to put memory onto to the CPU to allow faster access and have it be shared between the cores. It is much cheaper to buy and support multiple core chips than buy a must faster single core CPU.

With data centers, 40% of the cost is power. The building around the data center is only around 15% of the cost. Saving power translates to saving power for air conditioning as well. Backup power supplies take around 20% of the budget.

In storage, It is projected that there will be 10 Terabyte disks in 2010 for around $100. Flash will equal SATA storage costs in around 2012. Flash runs much cheaper and cooler than standard disk storage. It is projected that a 128GB Flash disk will cost $40 in 2010. The performance of Flash is better than disk and relatively low power. Flash also can have a much wider pipe.

In communications, 100Gbit/s LAN speeds will be viable in 2011. Total bandwidth is seen to triple every 12 months. Latency will continue to be a problem. Wireless will continue to grow but will not cover everyone. Signal loss will still be possible even in populated areas. Being offline will still be important.

Given the wide ranging topics, it would be better for you to see this information for yourself. What I have summarized is really just a taste. Hopefully you will be inspired to find out more.

I’ve been interested in cloud computing over the last year. It didn’t seem clear how certain problems were going to be solved in this space. With Pat’s presentation, many aspects of this are now much clearer. It does indicate some pretty big shifts that are about to happen to both the producers and consumers of this kind of technology range. Strangely enough, I see what Pat suggests as making computer systems behave a bit more like biological elements. By this, I mean that it is new to allow a computer system to act more autonomously with the possibility for making a mistake. When things become more decentralized, computer systems are going to have to make educated guesses without some central server telling them what is right and wrong. In fact, there will be no central server. It becomes more a living system with divergent results which ultimately come together in the end. It might seem like science fiction but in reality this kind of working is not far off from becoming real.

Just this morning I received an email internally about XenDesktop 2.0 documentation.  Sometimes it is easy to lose track of this kind of information.  Personally I had no idea where it was stored.

Here is a sample of what it has.  Click on it to make it readable.

Recent experience says that it pays to read Citrix documentation.  It might be more fun initially to try not reading the manual but this usually leads to frustration later on.

Over the last several weeks, I’ve posted articles about “Good to Great”. Now is the time to collect them together and finish this off.

Here is the list of posts:

• Good to Great
• Level 5 Leadership
• First Who, Then What
• Confront the Brutal Facts
• The Hedgehog Concept
• A Culture of Discipline
• Technology Accelerators
• The Flywheel and the Doom Loop
• From Good to Great to Built to Last
• Good to Great Video Explanation

Alternatively, just select the Good to Great category. Writing about the book has really helped to clarify certain parts I didn’t understand the first time around.

Putting it all together, much of this advice from “Good to Great” should seem like common sense. However, business sometimes loses track of this when in the thick of stressful competition. It is easy to get distracted and lose focus.

Most good companies will want to be great, but yet be unwilling to address what needs to change. Other good companies will only strive to be great once they are threatened. Perhaps they think they will be safe once they are great. And still other companies are perfectly happy to be good thinking it is just to hard to be great.

You are meant to be great. Companies just need to realize that they are not living a full life and that it would be actually easier to be great than to struggle being good.

I would have been much more critical of “Good to Great” had I not seen this happen in my own career. In many ways, “Good to Great” helped to explain why things weren’t great.

Thanks to Jim Collins and his research team for writing such wonderful material!

Also, watch the video in “Good to Great Video Explanation“ to understand quickly what “Good to Great” is all about. After that I would suggest reading the book.

And then ask, how can I make my company great?

Good luck.