Subject: Re: support for a small US college going GNU?
From: "Karsten M. Self" <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:31:12 -0700
Tue, 19 Jul 2005 00:31:12 -0700
on Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 03:16:52AM -0400, Chris Maeda ( wrote:
> Citrix vs WTS -- Citrix appears to support Linux clients while I'm willing
> to bet that WTS does not.

How much is that wager?

    $ apt-caceh show rdesktop

    Package: rdesktop
    Priority: optional
    Section: x11
    Installed-Size: 380
    Maintainer: Tomas Fasth <>
    Architecture: i386
    Version: 1.4.0-2
    Depends: libc6 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libssl0.9.7, libx11-6 | xlibs (>> 4.1.0)
    Filename: pool/main/r/rdesktop/rdesktop 1.4.0-2 i386.deb
    Size: 94912
    MD5sum: e5c0badff457920e941b80b0c1c05947
    Description: RDP client for Windows NT/2000 Terminal Server
     rdesktop is an open source client for Windows NT/2000 Terminal
     Server, capable of natively speaking its Remote Desktop Protocol
     (RDP) in order to present the user's NT/2000 desktop. Unlike Citrix
     ICA, no server extensions are required.

> If the app is mission critical (and therefore not easily substituted),
> then Citrix is really the only viable approach.  You would be nuts to
> bet the farm on Wine in its current state, and running the app in
> VMWare requires you to buy a Windows license and a VMWare license,
> which ends up being more expensive.

As I stated in my prior post:  legacy MS Windows licensing is going to
bite you no matter what.  I'm not sure what the situation is with WTS /
Citrix, but it's a mess.

The situation here is less expense than a mix of capability, centralized
management, and control.

One of the attractions of a virtualized solution is the ability to lock
down a system to just that state which provides capabilities, with all
stateful changes rolled back to a known good state.  Disk images and
whatever VMWare's current "we don't write the session data until you
tell us to, and only if" technology is called, etc.  Absent
virtualization, you'd need an add-on product such as Deep Freeze to
provide comperable control.  With The New York Times writing about
people junking perfectly good hardware due to spyware, viruses, and
other malware afflictions, you need this order of control to even
contemplate 'Doze.

The expense of the software itself is, all considered, relatively small.

Karsten M. Self <>
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
  The revolution will not be televised.
  You can apt-get it from the usual mirrors, however.

["application/pgp-signature" not shown]