Re: Itanium lap tops are needed now!

davidc@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >Think: Citrix. Citrix is an "X-windows" paradigm for MS-Windows in that
> >the program runs on a "server", but is displayed on a desktop.
>
> Yes, I've dealt with a company that used to use Citrix for some HIPAA
> application - now uses web-based applications. Web browsers are
> getting more capable, what with some of the AJAX functionality becoming
> more widespread.

OT: Am I the only one here old enough to remember a book titled, "You
Try Love, and I'll Try Ajax"?

> >Windows is unstable enough without adding the complexity of Citrix on
> >top of it, not to mention the bandwidth demands. Let a virus or a worm
> >through the firewall and kiss your enterprise-wide app. (not to mention
> >the desktop clients) good-bye (speaking from experience here).
>
> Okay - Citrix "X-window"-like functionality is bad

For what it tries to be, I don't think Citrix is "bad" ("mediocre" may
be at least somewhat fair) - it's just a kludge to allow MS-Windows to
do something it was never intended to do.

> - so why is
> X-windows better?

1. X was designed to be client/server. Windows was not.

2. Of itself, X offers no other advantages, save for a certain
"ubiquity", if I can be a bit loose about using that term. What makes
the difference is the underlying platform. Granted, applications and
middleware can defeat even the strongest low-level security. See recent
threads here regarding php vulnerabilities allowing a VMS-based web
server to be compromised.

> Why is opening up port 6000 better than Citrix.
> Remember that in X-windows, the client/server is reversed. The
> "server" is really the desktop and the X-window application is the
> client and has to connect to your desktop. At least with Citrix, it is
> an explicit connection from the desktop to the Citrix server (which is
> easier to deal with firewall issues).

Of course, that only speaks to the interconnect layers, and not the user
interface "layer" itself.

> >Now, take that same app., and develop it for an X-capable deployment,
> >run it on a multi-user o.s. like VMS and VOILA! Secure, stable operating
> >environments with VASTLY improved performance and reliability. The folks
> >at HIPAA will "thank" you, to say the least.
>
> Secure? How secure is it when it's possible for another application to
> screen-scrape your whole X-window session, because you've have port
> 6000 open?

See recent threads about tunnelling over SSH.

> X-window traffic isn't encrypted, either. Web based
> application can be encrypted almost trivially by using https rather
> than http.

However, the application architecture is vastly different.

Consider the complexities of, say, "wwwWord" or "WebExcel", or whatever
they might be called, compared to what we have today.

--
David J Dachtera
dba DJE Systems
http://www.djesys.com/

Unofficial OpenVMS Hobbyist Support Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/support/

Unofficial Affordable OpenVMS Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/soho/

Unofficial OpenVMS-IA32 Home Page:
http://www.djesys.com/vms/ia32/

Coming soon:
Unofficial OpenVMS Marketing Home Page
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Like I said...
    ... with the traditional client/server model in an app ... many customers that use Terminal Services or Citrix. ... TS/Citrix solves both of these very nicely. ... extremely fast. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Performance Testing Question
    ... I have a question regarding performance testing of a client/server ... application running on Citrix. ... We need to scale to approximately 600 ...
    (comp.software.testing)