Same in SCGUI.

Post #13,730 by admin 10/17/01 9:24:50 AM Reply	Same in SCGUI. Server side language and SCGUI itself. So what's the difference? Regards, -scott anderson
Post #13,822 by tablizer 10/17/01 4:23:03 PM Reply	odd counting SCGUI solution: 1. Server-side language 2. SCGUI protocol YOUR SOLUTION 1. Server-side language 2. JS 3. DOM 4. HTML? ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #13,847 by admin 10/17/01 6:18:59 PM Reply	Re: odd counting - yes, you do count oddly. SCGUI solution: SCGUI browser download/installation - developer doesn't need to know implementation to use SCGUI server side code Mine: JS download - developer doesn't need to know JS to use HTML server side code Bur of course, you will never ever admit that the developer doesn't need to know JS in my solution, so until then, have a good life. Regards, -scott anderson
Post #13,904 by tablizer 10/18/01 12:51:13 AM Reply	assumption missing >> SCGUI browser download/installation << But you are not counting Netscape download and installion. I am assuming that SCGUI (or something like it) becomes common. I realize for your particular situation, that is not a realistic assumption. But, I am thinking macro here. >> But of course, you will never ever admit that the developer doesn't need to know JS in my solution, << You divided up the labor so that one programmer makes some libraries and another uses those libraries. You did not eliminate JS programming by relabling it "generic". If they became public domain or OSS and fairly common, then I might count it differently. You probably say the same thing about SCGUI. However, at least I have a public demo whereas you don't. I just think the industry needs a good remote GUI protocol, and your approach is not it. That is all I am saying. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #13,919 by pwhysall 10/18/01 2:56:45 AM Reply	That's even nuttier for you Because SCGUI only runs on a platform that ships with an integrated web browser that's fully kitted out with JavaScript and the DOM. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #13,922 by pwhysall 10/18/01 3:07:05 AM Reply	Clarification What I mean is that you're bitching about having to download and install Netscape (why? Every Linux distro out there COMES with the damn thing)... Windows comes with IE5, which is all-singing, all-dancing JS/DOM stylee. You have to download and install the SCGUI "browser". JS/DOM = no effort for user, just go to web page SCGUI = Muchas effort for user, including installing spawn-of-satan VB runtime libraries. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #13,921 by pwhysall 10/18/01 3:00:53 AM Reply	Re: assumption missing I just think the industry needs a good* remote GUI protocol, and your approach is not it. That is all I am saying.* Cross platform, check. Application-independent, check. Low bandwidth, check. Low latency, check. [link\|http://www.citrix.com\|Click Here] You really don't know ANYTHING about this area, do you? Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #14,103 by tablizer 10/19/01 12:47:16 AM Reply	Cytrix is NOT latency-friendly, and.... I have never seen it run over HTTP. Have you? ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #14,125 by pwhysall 10/19/01 3:18:56 AM Reply	Yes it bloody well is! It runs over links as slow as a 28.8k modem! It's extremely "latency-friendly". (I think you really mean "low latency" as in "interactive but what the hey. It's too late to expect you to start making sense now) Gah, you really know nothing at all about it. And why would I care if it runs over HTTP? Yeah, running a binary protocol (Citrix ICA) over a textual one (HTTP). Uh huh. Yeah. Pass me the crack pipe when you're done. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #14,264 by tablizer 10/20/01 2:42:11 AM Reply	HTTP is important >> And why would I care if it runs over HTTP? << Because HTTP is choppier than other protocols (that may work over an 28.8 modem). Often corporate firewalls only work with HTTP, and the admins don't like exceptions. I have seen it happen multiple times. Tell me that Cytrix works fine over a modem using HTTP. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #14,274 by pwhysall 10/20/01 4:52:02 AM Reply	Bollocks Now you're a network admin? You're seriously telling me that corporate networks don't allow Citrix ICA traffic through - as a matter of policy? looks at his corporate firewall Well, MY firewall lets it through. Firewall-1 even has a predefined port range, just tick the "Citrix" box and make a rule. You're blowing hot air. You know nothing about Citrix products and you know nothing about corporate network administration (which is what I do for a living, you numbskull). Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #14,316 by tablizer 10/20/01 2:43:55 PM Reply	I saw it happen >> You're seriously telling me that corporate networks don't allow Citrix ICA traffic through - as a matter of policy? << Here is the deal. I contracted at a place that sent sales leads to hundreds of businesses. They used VB with Cytrix. Enough of those 100+ "consumers" of the data complained that either their firewall would not let the information through, or they did not have the staff to troubleshoot/change/approve the firewall problems. (Some customers were big and some were small.) It was a big enough complaint that the data distributor (the place I contracted at) decided to make a web-based version using Java. (Coordinating Java certs was a major pain, and was not yet fully solved by that developer when my stint was up. They used Java because they wanted a decent grid and HTML didn't give it. But that is another story. Personally IMO they didn't think it through enough.) The customer is always right and enuf customers complained about Cytrix and the firewalls. ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #14,319 by bepatient 10/20/01 2:49:47 PM Reply	Get a room guys... You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #14,322 by pwhysall 10/20/01 3:09:14 PM Reply	And that proves what? That some people don't see a business benefit for using Citrix products? You, as a contractor, know precisely bugger all about the reasoning behind the rejection of Citrix products as a solution. Get real. The fact that some of these clients were small leads me to think that it was primarily rejected on cost grounds. It's feary expensive stuff. Small clients also see the cost and go "no, we're not modifying our budget plans^W^Wfirewall for that". If there's a business need for poking a hole in the firewall, it will be done. no amount of raving that you do will change that. Remember, Microsoft recently bought one of the most popular accounting packages, Great Plains - this is one of the most common ICA applications. There's a remote GUI solution that kicks SCGUI's ass off the map. It's called Java. Or it's called JavaScript. Take your pick, SCGUI does NOT solve any problems. YOU can't throw a VB app onto my Linux computer. Citrix Metaframe can do that. Until you can run your SCGUI thing on more than one platform, you're just not in Metaframe's league. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #14,323 by pwhysall 10/20/01 3:13:17 PM Reply	One last thing I've finally grown tired of trying to impart clues to you. That was my last post on the subject - it's quite clear you're not interesting in learning anything, only arguing. Peter Shill For Hire [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal]
Post #14,373 by ben_tilly 10/21/01 2:14:16 AM Reply	Actually Bryce has a point here The fact that your corporate network allows Citrix through doesn't mean that all of them do. In fact many do not. As you well know, well-run firewalls start out with a default "deny all". And then you start adding things you allow. If they don't have an exception made for Citrix traffic from outside, you won't get it without a bureaucratic hassle. And at many companies the corporate firewall kills Citrix. If you want to deliver a product over the net using Citrix, you will lose potential clients because of that. It is no fun calling up a prospect and finding that the group you are dealing with don't receive Citrix. You may have a perfectly good product. But you can't demo it to them. And even if you did sell them on how nice your stuff is, they won't bother because they don't have the time or energy convincing their BOFHs that they really need this. (And yes, the company where I work looked long and hard at trying to deliver products to clients using Citrix. And for our client base it wasn't worthwhile. We, in fact, get better penetration of our core market from our Bloomberg product than we could get with Citrix. That should tell you a lot about who our clients are.) Cheers, Ben
Post #14,421 by static 10/21/01 9:10:27 AM Reply	But I'm wondering how relevant it is. Scott's application was IIRC for a private network. Such a scenario would be unlikely to have firewalls restricting traffic. And if it did, they would be more likely to be configured to let the appropriate traffic through. But you're right; Bryce does have a valid point about sending that stuff over the 'net. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #14,526 by ben_tilly 10/22/01 8:14:12 AM Reply	It is at least halfway There are people who sell things like the application under question. So whether or not it is for public sale, the concerns of publically selling it are not irrelevant for applications like that. Furthermore even if it is private, as a developer Scott may face IS barriers if he wants to modify current network policy and use Citrix. Again, if they have Citrix, it isn't an issue. If not, then it could be. Which is, of course, irrelevant since he delivered through HTTP. :-) Cheers, Ben
Post #14,574 by addison 10/22/01 12:54:48 PM Reply	Not quite irrelevent... Which is, of course, irrelevant since he delivered through HTTP. :-) The current crop of firewalls are (for just this purpose) able to look into packets and ensure that they are HTTP packets.. Packets that look to be encapsulated other protocols can be rejected, or filtered. So if you're 'denying all' you've likely got that [passing of HTML encapsulated packets] turned off, too. Addison

Welcome to IWETHEY!