Call for opinions: re: IE vs. Netscape vs. Citrix vs. .NET

Post #25,730 by admin 1/25/02 2:15:06 PM Reply	Call for opinions: re: IE vs. Netscape vs. Citrix vs. .NET Through various means, I've been called upon to render an opinion for the following situation: There is an application, currently written in ASP with IE 4.0+ as the client, that must be presented to firms that use Netscape as their browser. Instead of modifying their DHTML to accomodate Netscape (various reasons: they don't want to have to spend the money/expertise to support it, they are a MS shop only, and they want to create "richer" applications), the company has come up with several "alternatives": 1) Go to .NET, serve up the data with XML, and create a VB .NET application to install on the client desktops (or allow the client to use the web services directly). 2) Build the app in VB, and use Citrix Metaframe to serve the application. I can handle the discussion wrt. supporting a desktop application at a client vs. a web application. What I need is discussion revolving around the advantages/disadvantages of Citrix in such a situation. Anyone familiar with it? These people are desperately Microsoft (cf. the word "richer", used several times in a conversation), but pressure can be brought to bear if a better solution is proposed. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,732 by drewk 1/25/02 2:20:37 PM Reply	Just to be obvious You could always point out to them that if they had stuck to standards -- real standards, not the MS kind -- then they wouldn't be in this position right now. Of course, you might prefer not to piss them off. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #25,739 by admin 1/25/02 2:41:37 PM Reply	That will be one of the points. As I said, there is a capacity for applying pressure here. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,751 by nking 1/25/02 3:54:25 PM Reply	This is up my alley. The lawfirm that I worked at, had to have clients use their Intranet applications. They are a MS-Shop, so of course it was IE 4.0 and VBScript DHTML. So they first set up a Citrix Winframe/Metaframe server and then a MS Terminal Server to replace it. This required a client on the system to access it. I should point out that the license for the server and clients is prety steep. You may want to consider Win4Lin and then running clients off of that to avoid the big licensing fees of MS and Citrix. Advatnages of Citrix/Terminal Server: 1. After it is set up properly, no DLLs to futz with unless someone hoses up the Citrix/Terminal Server machine. 2. No need to install anything but the Citrix Client on the client machine. There exists the Windows 9X, NT/2000/XP, MacOS, Linux, OS/2, DOS, and Java clients. The Citrix ICA client can be used with MS Terminal Server if set up properly. 3. Connect to the server via a modem or TCP/IP Internet connection. Just like running a Windows box on the Intranet. Disadvantages: 1. Performance is slow, graphic data has to be sent to the client to update it. This would be faster if used natively. 2. Security issues, make sure that there is a password to access the Citrix/Terminal Server and that it changes each month. make sure that they checked the encryption box to avoid packet scanners if they are connecting via the Internet. 3. If the connection to the server is gone, or the client gets messed up, they will not have access until it is fixed. If someone installs software like the AOL client, it can mess up the VPN software. 4. If Terminal Server is chosen, more money to Microsoft for licenses. Alternatives to Citrix: Win4Lin under Linux. Write for Mozilla, run Mozilla under an X-Server and use X-Clients. Rewrite the code so that all form processing and other things are done on the server side, with hardly any client side scripting. Rewrite the code so that the ASp page detects the browser version and type, and provides different Javascript code for IE and Netscape. This can be done very easily if you scan the ASP news/article web pages like [link\|http://www.asptoday.com\|ASPToday.com] [link\|http://www.4guysfromrolla.com\|4GuysFromRolla.com] and [link\|http://normad.8m.net/asphelp.html\|others]. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,779 by admin 1/25/02 5:37:31 PM Reply	Re: This is up my alley. I should point out that the license for the server and clients is prety steep. You may want to consider Win4Lin and then running clients off of that to avoid the big licensing fees of MS and Citrix. Again, these guys are strictly a Microsoft shop. If Netscape is too big a leap, Linux just ain't gonna happen. :-) 2. No need to install anything but the Citrix Client on the client machine. There exists the Windows 9X, NT/2000/XP, MacOS, Linux, OS/2, DOS, and Java clients. The Citrix ICA client can be used with MS Terminal Server if set up properly. Are there license charges no matter the platform, though? 1. Performance is slow, graphic data has to be sent to the client to update it. This would be faster if used natively. Just to make sure I'm reading you correctly: are you saying the Windows clients perform better with graphics? 3. If the connection to the server is gone, or the client gets messed up, they will not have access until it is fixed. If someone installs software like the AOL client, it can mess up the VPN software. If the connection is lost, the app goes down? This is not like VNC then where you can reconnect later? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,807 by nking 1/25/02 9:24:53 PM Reply	Alley cats Windows clients, it would be better to have the Windows clients on the same network as the Web server. You can run the Citrix client, and it does cache the graphics for faster access if the screens are repeated. But otherwise on a 56K connection it is going to be slow. The more graphics, the slower the load time. We tried to keep our ASP pages simple HTML tables with as little graphics as possible. It depends on the settings and if the Citrix server was reset. Usually if the server was not reset, when the client reconnects, the applications are still in memory and waiting for a response. So if you had your browser open before Ma Bell cut you off, it will be open when you reconnect. At least it worked that way. Gosh, I am trying to get all of this out of my mind. I've forgotten what versions we worked with, and I cannot connect to their servers anymore to check. They usually used the most recent one, unless the technical specialist who administrated it decided that they could not upgrade for some reason. They went from Citrix to Windows 2000 Terminal Server. As a result, I sometimes get the two confused. They still called Terminal Server the Citrix server, and the Terminal Server Client the Citrix client. Tomato, Tomoto, whatever. I think you need 1 Server license, 1 Client license for both the NT/2000 Server and Windows Client, and the Citrix/Terminal Server and Clients. But don't quote me on that. Visit the [link\|http://www.citrix.com\|Citrix.com] and [link\|www.microsoft.com/windows2000/technologies/terminal/default.asp\|W2K terminal Server]web sites for more info. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,785 by admin 1/25/02 6:22:57 PM Reply	Another ? on licensing As I understand it, Citrix requires a Citrix server license, a Windows server license, and a MS Client Access License and Citrix client license for each user. Is this true? Also, what version did you use? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,757 by ben_tilly 1/25/02 4:11:42 PM Reply	Does it run under Mozilla? If so, there are a variety of ways to arrange for them to wind up viewing it through Mozilla, and you don't need to create a custom application... Cheers, Ben
Post #25,769 by admin 1/25/02 5:08:17 PM Reply	No. But my opinion is that changing the javascript to support Netscape 6.x is a lot less work than building a completely new architecture. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,761 by tablizer 1/25/02 4:31:28 PM 1/25/02 4:33:02 PM Reply	Modification effort? Is the main problem that they don't want to modify the application to handle multiple browsers? Of so, then why would a total rewrite be an option? It seems to me that a partial rewrite would be less painful. Seperate the parts of the application that would run on each browser type. I have before put in IF statements like: .... if netScape then ....doNetscapeSpecificStuff..... else ....doMirosoftSpecificStuff.... end if .... (There is an HTTP variable that returns the browser brand and version.) If you want, you can even try to OOP-atize it so that you subclass for each browser "type" such that you only have to override browser-specific methods. But you may find that the granularity of the differences is often smaller than method boundaries. (The ol' override-one-third-of-a-method delema.) ________________ oop.ismad.com Edited by tablizer Jan. 25, 2002, 04:33:02 PM EST Expand All History
Post #25,771 by admin 1/25/02 5:09:51 PM Reply	IF statements not even necessary For the most part, code that runs in javascript in Mozilla will run in IE. Not so the other way, unfortunately, and that is why there is a problem. But yes, I don't think they're going to get away with a complete rewrite just for the sake of avoiding Netscape. :-) Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,790 by kmself 1/25/02 6:44:07 PM Reply	Take a look at Ximian's Mono... ...and watch for announcements over the next few days. Might be promising. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] [link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|[link\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.ix.netcom.com/]] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`
Post #25,798 by admin 1/25/02 8:13:22 PM Reply	Very doubtful. If using .NET isn't a good idea because it's too new (it is), then Mono would be a disaster -- a brand new implementation of an untested platform. The idea is to dissuade them doing anything other than doing the trivial rewrite necessary to start supporting Netscape too. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,819 by altmann 1/25/02 11:52:36 PM Reply	Is IE still on the clients' machines? Are the binaries still there? Do they prevent access to IE, or just decree that it shall not be used as a general browser? What about a thin VB wrapper around the IE html control? No browser controls, just a rectangle to run the app in. -- Chris Altmann
Post #25,823 by admin 1/26/02 12:21:38 AM Reply	Unknown. But that requires that they install and support a desktop application to run the HTML. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,878 by nking 1/26/02 2:41:35 PM Reply	IE on client machines If they run the first version of Windows 95 before IE was bundled with it, chances are they don't have IE. Or maybe they have IE 3.0, and it does not work with the code designed to work with IE 4.0 and higher? NT 4.0 also had an earlier version of IE on it. Ah fudge, just re-write the ASP stuff in Java, it should then run on any browser that supports Java. Right? "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,890 by admin 1/26/02 4:17:43 PM Reply	The idea is to avoid a complete rewrite... Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,831 by Another Scott 1/26/02 12:50:24 AM Reply	My $0.02. It sounds like they want to support a different platform at no cost and with no work. Failing that, they want to keep an all MS solution. Failing that, they want to use an MS-blessed solution (Citrix) or wait for MS's new solution (.NET). But they don't want to wait. It sounds screwy to me. There seems to me to be no solution. There is an application, currently written in ASP with IE 4.0+ as the client, that must be presented to firms that use Netscape as their browser. I like the comment about putting a wrapper around IE and calling that, since IE is probably on the client machine (it's "part of the OS" after all). But that's cheating apparently. Can your firm require that the clients use Netscape 6.02? Maybe that's compatible enough with IE to solve the problem. (Some annoying ad I saw today seemed to indicate that 6.02 is out.) If a client isn't willing to run a (free) browser compatible with your firm's IE-only HTML, then why on earth would they be willing to shell out money for a solution based on Citrix? There would be training, support, and complexity issues in either case. And Citrix would probably be more hardware intensive than simply changing browsers. Sounds like... "Mr. Anderson - we have this wonderful material called Aluminum. It is a beautiful mirror in the visible wavelenghts region of light. We want you to use it to make a mirror in the visible while making the mirror transparent to infrared light." "Um, but you can't do that. Metals strongly reflect infrared light." "We don't care. You figure it out. But you have to use aluminum." Grrr... Best of luck. Cheers, Scott.
Post #25,839 by wharris2 1/26/02 2:06:00 AM Reply	Nicely put, or, the dentist says "this won't hurt a bit" "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #25,849 by admin 1/26/02 9:32:16 AM Reply	Netscape 6.02... ... is not compatible with VBScript. :-) My solution is quite straight-forward: Suck it up, change to JavaScript, and get with the program. I have demonstrable proof that it is quite easy to develop for both Mozilla and IE 5. Quitcher bitchin' and do what many other web companies do, and do the extra bit of work necessary. Stop proposing expensive, time-consuming, make-work alternatives simply because you do not want to support a non-MS product. But again, to do that, I need to make sure I have properly prepared against the use of Citrix. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,872 by tablizer 1/26/02 2:14:57 PM Reply	Yr facing a psycholgcl. issue not really a technical one You can't program around PHB thinking forever, it will eventually catch up to the design. Then again, "live for today" some say. In such situations I often make a pro/con report of each of the choices with estimated hours of labor required. If (when) they still go down the PHB route and F up, I can always whip out my pro/con report. It won't fix the problem nor make them like you, but satisfies the "I told you so" gland. The best solution from a career standpoint is to shut up and go with the flow [1]. I shud know, because I almost never do that :-) [1] Make sure they know your opinion on the subject, but don't keep "nagging" them. If they act like they didn't want to hear your opinion the first time, then it is not likely they will listen the second time and risk making you look like a geekpest. PHB's like to twist reality, not face it. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #25,873 by admin 1/26/02 2:20:36 PM Reply	This isn't a PHB thing. These are recalcitrant developers, not managers. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,879 by nking 1/26/02 2:44:02 PM Reply	Web Compass There used to be a Web Compass plug-in that did VBScript for Netscape. I think that they discontinued it. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,891 by admin 1/26/02 4:18:18 PM Reply	It's all javascript, I've come to find out Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,885 by tonytib 1/26/02 2:59:14 PM Reply	I'd agree with your solution but I can't help you with the case against Citrix/VB.NET Do you have to deal with these people? Using VBScript for client side scripting? To put it nicely, I'm not impressed with their decision making. Oh, well, at least from a language perspective, JavaScript (or JScript if they're true MS wienies) should be able to do anything VBScript can do -- and a whole lot more. Tony
Post #25,888 by nking 1/26/02 3:11:26 PM Reply	MS oriented IT people I used to work with that type. Totally against anything that was not Microsoft. If you wanted to do Java, they would refuse to support you. If you wanted Javascript or JScript, you'd better give them a good reason why VBScrpt couldn't do the same things. In some cases we had to use Javascript/JScript because the DHTML in VBScript was lacking. They are so strict that they even disallow Visual C++ and Visual J++ because it is not Visual BASIC, and nobody else in the firm would be able to support it if you are gone (got fired, downsized, you quit, etc.) Those types are almost as bad as the PHBs that push for an MS-Only solution. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #25,892 by admin 1/26/02 4:20:26 PM Reply	I was wrong about the vbscript It's all javascript, just IE-specific. Their case is looking weaker by the moment. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #25,963 by folkert 1/27/02 4:57:19 PM Reply	Flat out refusal to answer... Cause you already know my fellings on the subject(s) L8R `greg, curley95@attbi.com -- REMEMBER ED CURRY!!!` In 2002, everyone will discover that everyone else is using linux. Linux: Good, fast AND cheap. Failure is not an option: It comes bundled with Windows. ** "Two rules to success in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know." - Sassan Tat
Post #26,502 by admin 1/30/02 9:54:15 AM Reply	Refresh my memory? Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #26,086 by boxley 1/28/02 1:28:03 PM Reply	lets look at the ongoing maintenance costs hardware to run rich server thin client like citrix is expensive plus licensing plus adminning and coding the new box vs cost of adminning and coding a non hardware solution. Bang for Buck support netscape. thanx, bill My Dreams aren't as empty as my conscience seems to be
Post #26,384 by nking 1/29/02 3:22:37 PM Reply	You are correct however he has to tell this to PHBs, Empty Suits, and IT MS-Robots. They may never see the high costs, and appoint one of their own to be the "Citrix Czar" or "Terminal Server Shaw" and actually create a job to keep up with the updates and upgrading? Rewriting the code in Java would be the lower cost solution as far as maintenance costs go. Write once, run many. Just make sure that the clients keep up with the Java updates. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #26,497 by wharris2 1/30/02 9:26:55 AM Reply	Cynical view "It costs more, therefore it must be better." "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Post #26,501 by ben_tilly 1/30/02 9:54:15 AM Reply	If you want to keep that view... then I will have to charge you for it, thereby allowing you to prove to yourself that your view is superior. Cheers, Ben
Post #26,535 by cforde 1/30/02 12:16:12 PM Reply	yes, well I'll charge him even more on an annual subscription with a lock-in clause that forbids him to even learn about other opinions. Have fun, Carl Forde
Post #26,554 by ben_tilly 1/30/02 2:20:49 PM Reply	At this rate... We will make him unable to afford his current opinion. At which point we will offer to pay him money for writing letters saying how great we are, so that is OK. Cheers, Ben
Post #26,558 by drewk 1/30/02 2:42:10 PM Reply	Good for him I'll charge less Because my service is easier to use. And I promise not to charge more once you go out of business. Really. We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html\|Thomas Friedman]
Post #26,607 by ben_tilly 1/30/02 9:11:45 PM Reply	Too bad for you... The customers already believe that you get what you pay for, and they are paying cforde and me for maintaining their current world view. Which we will do for as long as they can afford it. Good luck finding any customers... Cheers, Ben
Post #26,581 by nking 1/30/02 4:22:03 PM Reply	That is why Open Source doesn't catch on with the suits they think that if it was any good, it wouldn't be almost free, or open source code. Also Windows costs more to maintain, so they think it must be better. The same people think that if they just throw more money at a problem, that it will go away. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."
Post #26,605 by n3jja 1/30/02 8:39:10 PM Reply	Heh The same people think that if they just throw more money at a problem, that it will go away. Well, they're right..... sort of. The money will certainly go away. As to the problem....... ;-)
Post #26,747 by nking 1/31/02 6:34:19 PM Reply	Problem solving The best way to solve a problem is to find the root cause of the problem and get rid of the root. If not, the problem will keep returning and causing more problems. if the root of the problem is MS-Code that causes memory leaks, system crashes, and a ton of support time and over costs, then the solution is to get rid of the MS-Code and use something else. Like replace Windows 2000 Server, IIS 5.0, SQL Server, and ASP with Linux, Apache, MySQL (or Oracle for Linux), and PHP/JSP. "Will code Visual BASIC for cash."

Welcome to IWETHEY!