|
Saying XenApp and ThinApp are the same thing is like saying XenApp and an .msi are the same thing. Why even do ThinApp if you're going to do physical PCs with lots of resources? Just setup SCCM or Tivoli or whatever ESD you want and install packages normally. Doing ThinApps to physical PCs makes very little sense. At least with VDI you could say you wanted an app strategy for non-persistent machines without having to update the golden image. Not to mention there's no solid deployment strategy for ThinApps unless you're doing GPOs to install the .msi it creates, or running thinreg.exe at logon or something. ThinApp is terrible. That said, if you have no reason to leverage server resources/mobility requirements/etc., then don't go XenApp either. Seriously, just install apps with a normal enterprise software deployment tool. If you really love VMware, Mirage makes more sense than ThinApp for physical PCs.
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Short answer is our desktop management is handled by a company that does multiple other healthcare providers within the same province and we all share resources. Unfortunately and fortunately that means giving up all control over app deployments desktop deployments software windows updates etc. however some of our critical healthcare software has update cycles every 3 weeks. To even begin to deploy software on client computers a project needs to start and money needs to be thrown at them and the timelines are around 8 to 9 weeks per update. Not feasible with what we need. We can have them install workspace to all the pc's and we control how often a thinapp gets updated, the icons are controlled by workspace as well. I don't know why you have such a hate for thinapp but I would love to know more details before we jump into this
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
ThinApp everything was a strategy pitched like 3-4 years ago as the panacea to app delivery. In practice, you'll find them a pain to manage and troubleshoot, if you can even get your app working. Even VMware is giving up on thinapp except in niche cases like where you need to run old versions of IE or multiple versions of Java; that's why they bought CloudVolumes. It's just not a great tool for widespread usage. Maybe if you're trying it for one or two apps, it's whatever, that's fine. It's an okay tactical tool. I can tell you any consultant that tells you ThinApp is a good strategy for app deployment is either ignorant or trying to just sell you something. If you're just trying to play a political game and say its not software deployment, use VMware Mirage and say its layering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:Why were you even doing the whole VDI thing if you have real PC hardware on the clients and the ability to manage them effectively? Our main use case however, is slow WAN links and applications that work with large datasets. A tertiary selling point is that if someone steals a PC from a branch location, I know it has zero sensitive data, because the user ran everything in their VDI session.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
I never used Thinapp 3-4 years ago so I don't know what it was like. What did you find to be a pain to manage and troubleshoot? I find it hard to believe that VMware is "giving up" on thinapp when they literally just released updates to view, workspace and thinapp to integrate the whole shebang together less than a month ago. The primary driver behind this is Citrix printing issues and remote regions. We've had citrix printing issues for years whereas thinapp just seems to work with all our specialized apps we've tried. The remote regions are sometimes on 10Mb links with 40/50ms latency and citrix just isn't cutting it. Having a local "install" looks like it will fix these problems.   Workspace is pretty much just citrix storefront if they don't have the client installed. If they do (which all our machines will) it automatically adds desktop and start menu shortcuts. What am I missing here man? How big is your org and how many users did you use it with? What specific problems were you having or having trouble doing? We have very large teams for each application that do deep testing with any new platform and so far there's been no issues with thinapps at all. When we moved to 6.5 it was problems up the rear end constantly loving around with group policy, registry and profile settings to get it to work. Thinapp I just installed it and ran the post capture and it works. Please go into more detail about your problems because I'm looking for any reason to not use this but using words like " 3 - 4 years ago " and vague things like it's a pain to manage and troubleshoot isn't specific enough. How was Metaframe 4.5 4 years ago? It was poo poo. Ask me how I know. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
I also just did a quick setup of View RDSH which is exactly like XenApp... Looks good as well. This might pull us back from doing our 7.6 upgrade and start looking at going purely to VMware. This is a nice summary comparing actual recent software versions http://stealthpuppy.com/xenapp-vs-horizon-view-rds/
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Has anyone tried running Hyper-V on a SoFS share? I'm trying to create a machine, and the SoFS share has everyone with full control, as well as the hyper-v host machine account, my machine account, administrators, etc, but it gives a "Failed to create external configuration store at '\\sofs\hyperv\Windows': General access denied error. (0x80070005)" error. All machines involved are 2012r2. I can confirm that anyone can create directories and write to the share by using a non-domain machine to access it. Is there some trick to Hyper-V that I'm missing? Edit: Jesus christ, MS could have mentioned any part of this "constrained delegation" in the documentation. http://blogs.technet.com/b/josebda/...ile-shares.aspx Serfer fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:I find it hard to believe that VMware is "giving up" on thinapp when they literally just released updates to view, workspace and thinapp to integrate the whole shebang together less than a month ago. Here are the last 2 years worth of release notes for ThinApp. Tell me that they're committed to its development based on reading these exciting changes: https://www.vmware.com/support/thinapp4/doc/releasenotes_thinapp501.html https://www.vmware.com/support/thinapp4/doc/releasenotes_thinapp50.html https://www.vmware.com/support/thinapp4/doc/releasenotes_thinapp473.html If ThinApp was so successful, please tell me why VMware needed CloudVolumes as their new application delivery tool? That's also after they bought Wanova (now Mirage) to try to fix their mistake with trying to tell people to use ThinApps everywhere. quote:The primary driver behind this is Citrix printing issues and remote regions. We've had citrix printing issues for years whereas thinapp just seems to work with all our specialized apps we've tried. The remote regions are sometimes on 10Mb links with 40/50ms latency and citrix just isn't cutting it. Having a local "install" looks like it will fix these problems. VDI or RDS may not be the way to go. That's fine, go physical, but don't use ThinApp as your application tool. Just install stuff natively or use Mirage, or basically anything other than ThinApp. quote:What am I missing here man? How big is your org and how many users did you use it with? What specific problems were you having or having trouble doing? If you don't want to take my word for it, that's fine. I can tell you, from experience picking up the pieces from clients that tried it, that using ThinApp as your primary application deployment strategy is a bad idea. If you're such a big environment, you probably have MDOP and have App-V for free. If you want to do app virtualization that way, at least do it for free. (Still a bad idea.) quote:Please go into more detail about your problems because I'm looking for any reason to not use this but using words like " 3 - 4 years ago " and vague things like it's a pain to manage and troubleshoot isn't specific enough. How was Metaframe 4.5 4 years ago? It was poo poo. Ask me how I know. I've already told you multiple times the problems ThinApp has, but I'll repeat them in detail: - Your package is virtualized and no longer native. You no longer get to use native tools to troubleshoot or work on your application once it's a ThinApp. Need to change something? It's not easy. Good luck having your help desk work on a ThinApp other than the most basic of "delete the sandbox." - Your application will most likely be unsupported by the vendor if it's in a virtualized container. Your vendor will not know how to troubleshoot it, and you'll need to reproduce it on a normal install. - Your application might not even work. The success ratio is hard to determine. You could do an application assessment and use something like Citrix's AppDNA to help determine this, but it's still very much "hit or miss." - Virtualizing an application into a container is not as easy as installing it on a server and then presenting it via Terminal Services (or deploying via SCCM or whatever ESD tool); there are compatibility issues and other problems you will run into trying to get apps to behave gracefully in this kind of setup. - Your app may not work as expected. Don't set it up just right, or just plain rely on something ThinApp can't support? You're out of luck. Shell extensions are a nice example here. Honestly, the fact that you thought XenApp and ThinApp were the same shows you don't have a very strong understanding of the technology in this space. I would advise you to bring in a partner to work with to determine a feasible strategy. I highly doubt any of them will tell you that ThinApp as your primary deployment strategy is a good idea. Is ThinApp okay for one-off applications or niche usage? Sure, but don't bank on it for your app strategy. But, by all means, continue down that path and report back in a year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Will do. Most of your predictions in this thread over the last three years have been way off base anyways so I'll let you know how it goes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Will do. Most of your predictions in this thread over the last three years have been way off base anyways so I'll let you know how it goes. Thanks for encouraging me to read my two year old posts, that was fun. Couldn't find an example of an incorrect prediction though. SSO requiring a rewrite: check. Windows still being used over VCSA for majority: check. vCloud Director sucking: check. XenServer being for poors: check. Sorry you're leading your company into failure. V  V
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
 have fun demolishing apps you have no experience with
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
yospos bitch
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
stupid things three has said posted:
As he points out supposed flaws in thinapp from 4 years ago. Hi, I'm three and can I help you move to Citrix TODAY?!?!
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:As he points out supposed flaws in thinapp from 4 years ago. ThinApp hasn't changed significantly in several years. I even gave you the release notes. Good luck with your ThinApp as a packaging tool/software distribution strategy. You're my new goto reference case on people not understanding technology and biting hook-line-and-sinker on the vendor's pitch. Try to find a reference case of any company successfully using ThinApp as their primary software distribution tool, or as a replacement for XenApp. three fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Why would I give a gently caress if it works in our use case. You must be the worst contractor and end up picking solutions without giving any thought to actual requirements for your customer. Based on your total generalizations and lack of understanding people must really love you. DONT YOU SEE THESE RELEASE NOTES!~~! PS I never said it would be a primary software distribution tool in like the second loving post. We do thick, xenapp, vdi, and more but you have such a fandom that you refuse to look at anything else unless you like it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Why would I give a gently caress if it works in our use case. You must be the worst contractor and end up picking solutions without giving any thought to actual requirements for your customer. Based on your total generalizations and lack of understanding people must really love you. What is my fandom for again? You should care because it's a dumb strategy and bad software. Also, if you're as large of a company as your claim, you likely have App-V for free. You're pretty sold though, so good luck! Nitr0 posted:We've started some preliminary testing to replace our xenapp with thinapp and this poo poo looks too good to be true. For only one app we can remove 40 xenapp servers and replace it with a couple file stores and stream a thinapp with better performance and easier management. What's the downside that I'm missing? 
three fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Maybe we could all chill out a little. This nerd thread about virtualizatrion software is getting a little heated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Maybe we could all chill out a little. This nerd thread about virtualizatrion software is getting a little heated. I support this argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
40 servers for one app, we have 130 more. Can't use Appv as also indicated in my previous posts explaining the situation Meh. I'll give a real review on thinapp when we have finished.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Moey posted:I support this argument.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
This should help cool tempers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fruwgLHCaCQ
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
This might need to go into the server thread, but it's somewhat VM related, let me know and I'll move it. I asked a month ago about setting up a VM lab. Well, I hosed up on my research and somehow came to the conclusion that ESXi had a host based VM software. I was wrong, so I don't have a dedicated bare metal machine right now. Well, I'm looking to get some hands on active directory experience. I have virtualbox and have been able to install Ubuntu, Windows 10 preview with relative ease (98 is still escaping me :arggh:), and will probably be putting a Server 2k8 or 2012 on soon enough. Question is, is there a way to set up a test environment so I can have 'pretend' users and whatnot so I can get some Active Directory experience? e: Should I download the VHD and just mount it from that or do an install from a .iso?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
DevNull posted:This should help cool tempers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fruwgLHCaCQ  Guy above me just install 2k12 and install ad and put on some users, bingo bango bongo. Edit: Thinapp active directory and run that. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 05:04
|
|
|
three posted:ThinApp hasn't changed significantly in several years. I even gave you the release notes. Release notes != real world; very close but not always determine the use cases of customers. You could say esx 4.x to 5.x aren't "that much of an improvement" based off the release notes. I mean poo poo, look at the real world case studies. ThinApp is stupid simple compared to citrix, It may not be the best but drat is it stupid simple to capture and deploy(aside from that connector plugin BS). quote:Good luck with your ThinApp as a packaging tool/software distribution strategy. You're my new goto reference case on people not understanding technology and biting hook-line-and-sinker on the vendor's pitch. There is more to a solution than telling people "well this works best in X because Y", finding the point where the business has the sweet spot on performance, cost, and administration is key. Just because something "works very good" doesn't mean it will survive, I mean hell IBM was doing virtualization in the 80's but mainframes died out and VMware/hyper-V/kvm took over because they were more flexible. quote:Try to find a reference case of any company successfully using ThinApp as their primary software distribution tool, or as a replacement for XenApp. I'm game; wanna throw down?(not in my office, flying around fixing poo poo).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
DevNull posted:This should help cool tempers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fruwgLHCaCQ I've decided that Tori Black just ad-libbed this video. VM Joint was in Vegas for the Big Data Innovation Summit, which just happened to coincide with the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo. The VM Joint guys were at a bar, Tori happened to be there, they started chatting about hypervisors and the rest is history.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
three posted:
http://www.vmware.com/a/customers/product/9?sort=d&next=1 Hey look it's only the largest communications company in Canada using thinapp but gently caress me right? "Currently, TELUS support provides access to more than 800 ThinApp applications via streaming from network shares. This gives offshore employees access to typical productivity tools such as Microsoft Office, as well as unified communications products, including Microsoft Lync for enterprise instant messaging and Live Meeting and WebEx for video conferencing. ThinApp enables IT support to manage the user-profile data all as one team."
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
That's via Horizon View. You wanted to do it to physical machines. Your opinion isn't going to change, so I'm not going to keep trying to tell you that ThinApp to physical is not a great solution given all of the options available. Go for it. It's your environment. I'm sure you can make it 'work'. Maybe if you do a good job you can move to the actual IT team and not have to try to circumvent the operational rules with bad software.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:You could say esx 4.x to 5.x aren't "that much of an improvement" based off the release notes. I mean poo poo, look at the real world case studies. ThinApp is stupid simple compared to citrix, It may not be the best but drat is it stupid simple to capture and deploy(aside from that connector plugin BS). Dilbert As gently caress posted:There is more to a solution than telling people "well this works best in X because Y", finding the point where the business has the sweet spot on performance, cost, and administration is key. Just because something "works very good" doesn't mean it will survive, I mean hell IBM was doing virtualization in the 80's but mainframes died out and VMware/hyper-V/kvm took over because they were more flexible
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
evol262 posted:Actually, esxi 4.1 to 5.0 was not a huge improvement. The big improvements were in making bundling vibs into images easier than making souffle (which isn't hard either, but it's finicky, prone to gently caress up badly if anything is even a little wrong, and a general PITA) and making people get off the "install RPMs, treat like RHEL" model ESX had fallen into. quote:Mainframes didn't die. And VMware was hot poo poo because binary was great. Hyper-v and KVM and other "hardware virt required" solutions are pretty much the opposite of flexible Mainframes didn't "die" but like the Edison phonograph the most adaptable wins, not the most superior and specific to HW. VMware really should understand this much sooner... VMware just did it first and made a name for it, I mean come on they loving wrote the poo poo on a kitchen napkin for their ideas. Citrix and Hyper-V got into it after Vmware made a name for themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
The only reason mainframes are still around is because they run super SUPER critical systems and the business could literally fail if the migration failed. Even hiccups in the migration could mean tens or hundreds of millions in lost revenue, not to mention the loss of customer trust. The risk just isn't worth the reward - it's cheaper to pay the IBM tax. My complaint to add to the fighting/bitching: Too many jobs want VMware experience. I haven't used it in like 5 years and I don't want to re-learn it, ugh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:You could say esx 4.x to 5.x aren't "that much of an improvement"; that and the VMFS5 improvements were pretty drat good. But VMFS5 was basically necessary for modern workloads, and is a lot of "we made this number larger" improvements. There were some pretty great additions to autodeploy, esxcli, and powercli, but the vmfs and vmkernel/hypervisor-level changes were pretty incremental. Nothing wrong with that, but it wasn't even close to earth-shattering. Just the kind of improvements you'd expect. Dilbert As gently caress posted:Mainframes didn't "die" but like the Edison phonograph the most adaptable wins, not the most superior and specific to HW. VMware really should understand this much sooner... VMware just did it first and made a name for it, I mean come on they loving wrote the poo poo on a kitchen napkin for their ideas. Citrix and Hyper-V got into it after Vmware made a name for themselves. Yeah, I meant that they didn't die in the sense that virtualization hasn't dinged their market share. Porting and offload to commodity x86, yes. Virt, no. X86 virt is anything but adaptable, unless you mean in the sense that commodity hardware gets a lot of attention and virtualizing that hardware lets you do that. Hyper-V is the opposite of adaptable. It's popular because it's Microsoft, integrates well with Windows licensing and Windows shops, and the tooling around it is good. But it doesn't do nested virt, doesn't share memory pages, barely supports non-Windows guests (they gun, mostly, but guest tools are iffy and support for the virtual devices is problematic on some operating systems), and clustering is a pain to set up. Citrix was around before VMware. WinServer in particular, but also metaframe. Unless you just mean XenApp (Metaframe) and App-V vs ThinApp and View, in which case you're still wrong. App-V also preceded ThinApp. VMware is the newcomer in this market. Stop drinking VMware's kool-aid. The tech world does not revolve around them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
hackedaccount posted:The only reason mainframes are still around is because they run super SUPER critical systems and the business could literally fail if the migration failed. Even hiccups in the migration could mean tens or hundreds of millions in lost revenue, not to mention the loss of customer trust. The risk just isn't worth the reward - it's cheaper to pay the IBM tax.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
hackedaccount posted:The only reason mainframes are still around is because they run super SUPER critical systems and the business could literally fail if the migration failed. Even hiccups in the migration could mean tens or hundreds of millions in lost revenue, not to mention the loss of customer trust. The risk just isn't worth the reward - it's cheaper to pay the IBM tax. A company I know of ran a Tandem mainframe up until 2004 (in parallel with the replacement system for six years, 1999-2004) when they were finally confident enough to transition off of the mainframe. I'm still not sure if they've fully recouped the cost of the conversion based on manpower, fines etc There's a major insurance company in Dallas that still runs all their software on Ada or ALGOL or some ancient A-name language (or maybe Pascal?) on some creaky old mainframe despite numerous attempts to wean off of it. A lady I sail with got trained in that programming language in the mid 1980's because they couldn't find anyone would could code in that language, so her and about 12 others have had job security for the last 30 years. They're really screwed when all their programmers finally die (she's almost 70). Hadlock fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Oct 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
three posted:That's via Horizon View. You wanted to do it to physical machines. Your opinion isn't going to change, so I'm not going to keep trying to tell you that ThinApp to physical is not a great solution given all of the options available. Go for it. It's your environment. I'm sure you can make it 'work'. Man, you are argumentative. Moving goalposts and all that. Physical, virtual. No drat difference. You ask for any company using thinapp in production, there's a clear as day example of 800 thinapps used in a 15billion a year company and you dismiss it. Nitr0 fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
I'm playing around in my vSphere 5.5 lab with storage capabilities/storage profiles. I added user-assigned capabilities to two datastores (DAS and iSCSI), created a storage profile for each capability, assigned storage profiles to each VM accordingly, and propagated the profiles to virtual disks. I go to check compliance and the hard disks are compliant, but the vm homes are not. They're stored in the same drat place! What am I missing? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Nitr0 posted:Man, you are argumentative. Moving goalposts and all that. Physical, virtual. No drat difference. You ask for any company using thinapp in production, there's a clear as day example of 800 thinapps used in a 15billion a year company and you dismiss it. Yes, there is no difference between virtual and physical. PS Thanks for my first custom av. I've finally made it on the SomethingAwful forums!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
What benefit do I get from installing the vmware tools on a freebsd guest of ESXi? They don't install cleanly so I can either patch them or install open-vm-tools. The VM is running a headless webserver so I don't need any fancy GUI tools, and traffic is low so I don't care much about performance. It seems like the only benefit then is the vmmemctl driver, but I'm not really sure what that does or if I need it. Any advice? Can I just skip the vmware tools? Edit: Maybe it's not ESXi because they're talking about vmawre tools being needed to live-migrate VMs. Is that true? Ninja Rope fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Oct 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:What benefit do I get from installing the vmware tools on a freebsd guest of ESXi? vmmemctl performs memory management functions on the guest. Without it, the host won't be able to reclaim unused or unnecessary memory pages from the guest. Without Tools installed you also won't get heartbeats for VM HA, and you won't be able to quiesce the filesystem when taking snapshots. If you can install it, certainly do, but it's not the end of the world if the VM doesn't have much RAM, you don't overcommit the memory, you don't plan on taking snapshots, and you don't plan on monitoring the VM with HA. Ninja Rope posted:Edit: Maybe it's not ESXi because they're talking about vmawre tools being needed to live-migrate VMs. Is that true? I've vMotioned guests in the middle of a Windows installation before so probably not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 15:13
|
|
|
Quick question about RDMs. I googled my problem and found a relevant KB but it didn't help much. I'm trying to add an RDM to a vm. I go through the settings - I choose the right LUN, 100GB in size, store it with the VM and give it a physical compatibility. When I submit the task it errors out with the message "Reconfigure virtual machine <VM> File [ESXiOS] <VM>.vmdk is larger than the maximum size supported by datastore 'ESXiOS'" The datastore blocksize is 1MB so that should be okay for the tiny disk. And there is enough free space. Is there something I am overlooking? (there must be)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 16:05 |
|
|
Been playing with Persona Management and have a quick question. Currently the Persona GPO is pointing to a share on a test server for the repository. If I change the GPO from \\testserver\userprofiles to \\prodserver\userprofiles will the existing profiles migrate over to the new repository as the users login? The only profile with any data on the test share is mine so it isn't a big deal but it was bothering me I couldn't google up an answer as to what happened when you changed the share location.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 19:38
|
|
