Application Virtualization in Linux Environment
-
@EddieJennings said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
Over the past year an a half I've received my first taste of application virtualization with my current company's Citrix XenApp environment.
I hate this term. There is no virtualization of any sort involved here. XenApp is a terminal server product, nothing else. It does nothing at the app level, and nothing with virtualization or containers. Citrix has grown famous for using real terms like these, and applying them to really basic, old tech that has nothing to do with what they are saying.
Calling this, and thinking about it, as "application virtualization" will make something really simple seem complex.
All this is is remote desktop where a single app, rather than the entire desktop, is selected.
All UNIX has done this for decades, natively, out of the box.
-
@travisdh1 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@EddieJennings The answer is that you don't have to do anything special. You login to another host (SSH, VNC, whatever) and run your applications. The published apps thing is really just automatically running a single app from a remote host. In any other environment it's so easy that I don't even think about it. Licensing is where Microsoft and Citrix make things difficult.
Exactly. It's just "how every OS other than Windows works". The entire RDS/XenApp thing on Windows is an attempt to mimic standard functionality everywhere else.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
With Linux, you likely wouldn't want to offer just an application, but instead an entire desktop environment
You could say the same thing with Windows. But there are loads of cases where you want only a single app. In fact, I'd say more often only a single app.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
And the reason Application Virtualization exists is solely as a means to reduce the TCO, whereby not supplying a desktop license, but instead just the software and accompanying license.
This is true of REAL app virt. But does not apply to remote access tech like XenApp.
-
The entire concept of XenApp is to work around legacy apps, which are by far most common on Windows. It is so much more rare on Linux to want to use a legacy app. Reasons still exist, but there are way fewer than on Windows. nearly all business apps on Linux are modern web apps, no need for these legacy access methods.
Windows is almost entirely a "legacy support" platform, so loads of legacy techniques are used to work around the expected limitations of the ecosystem.
-
@EddieJennings said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
I'm curious to know if my company was a Linux shop instead of a Microsoft shop, how could similar application virtualization be done?
The simple answer is... XenApp works the same on Linux as on Windows.
-
Got some reading ahead of me once I get off from work
-
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@EddieJennings said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
I'm curious to know if my company was a Linux shop instead of a Microsoft shop, how could similar application virtualization be done?
The simple answer is... XenApp works the same on Linux as on Windows.
I don't belive @EddieJennings was asking if XenApp would need to be used, but instead what other Linux based Application Virtualization tools like XenApp exist?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@EddieJennings said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
I'm curious to know if my company was a Linux shop instead of a Microsoft shop, how could similar application virtualization be done?
The simple answer is... XenApp works the same on Linux as on Windows.
I don't belive @EddieJennings was asking if XenApp would need to be used, but instead what other Linux based Application Virtualization tools like XenApp exist?
I get that, but XenApp is equally a tool on Linux as on Windows. It's not one or the other. So nothing is as much of an answer as that.
XenApp is the XenApp equivalent on Linux
But there are loads of other options... X does it natively, NX will do it, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@DustinB3403 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@EddieJennings said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
I'm curious to know if my company was a Linux shop instead of a Microsoft shop, how could similar application virtualization be done?
The simple answer is... XenApp works the same on Linux as on Windows.
I don't belive @EddieJennings was asking if XenApp would need to be used, but instead what other Linux based Application Virtualization tools like XenApp exist?
I get that, but XenApp is equally a tool on Linux as on Windows. It's not one or the other. So nothing is as much of an answer as that.
XenApp is the XenApp equivalent on Linux
But there are loads of other options... X does it natively, NX will do it, etc.
Are X and NX products?
-
@DustinB3403 said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
Are X and NX products?
X is the native Linux desktop display system. NX is a product like XenApp.
-
Linux does "application virtualization" like XenApp for literally every app it shows. It just does it automatically, locally and doesn't tell you.
-
In the past when I've seen customers use Citrix XenApp, and whatever it was called then, it was always to avoid installing some seldom used application on a bunch of clients. Probably both from a cost perspective as well as from a IT management perspective. So customers where running windows machines and could have installed it locally if they wanted to, but opted not to.
Speaking of that I actually haven't seen that many customers use thin clients. I like the concept but when a desktop with win10 costs the same as a thin client, it becomes hard to justify.
-
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
In the past when I've seen customers use Citrix XenApp,
MetaFrame!
-
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
Speaking of that I actually haven't seen that many customers use thin clients. I like the concept but when a desktop with win10 costs the same as a thin client, it becomes hard to justify.
that's why using a full OS is the standard "thin client" used today. Just not worth doing anything else.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
In the past when I've seen customers use Citrix XenApp,
MetaFrame!
Ahh, that sound familiar.
-
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
it was always to avoid installing some seldom used application on a bunch of clients. Probably both from a cost perspective as well as from a IT management perspective.
most vendors figured out to license it so that there was no cost savings that way. But for a seldom used app, IT often likes it done that way.
Also can be handy to make an app with low visual needs get gobs of server processing power.
-
About to be in a meeting (not related to this)
I’ve had a little time to think this through. It seems like offering virtual desktops through Linux could be as simple as having something like Guacamole set up. Users could use whatever computer they want as long as they have a browser, they login to Guacamole, have their desktop presented and be on their way. I’m probably oversimplifying Guacamole, but at a high level that seems like what’s going on.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
Speaking of that I actually haven't seen that many customers use thin clients. I like the concept but when a desktop with win10 costs the same as a thin client, it becomes hard to justify.
that's why using a full OS is the standard "thin client" used today. Just not worth doing anything else.
True. There are however TLXOS, a thin client OS that runs on Raspberry Pi and x86, that could become a useful thin client with the right price. It has support for citrix, vmware, rdp/remoteFX and some other stuff. Perpetual license was only $10 for RPi. It comes with an administration application as well.
I had some problems with it when I tested it with NX as it only supported the older open source protocols. And I was disappointed with its RDP software but that was almost two years ago so it might be better now. It also had some kiosk mode that I liked.
But if it works, it's a $50 thin client. I guess you could roll your own too based on debian/raspbian.
Here a old review on it (not by me):
https://xenappblog.com/2015/thinlinx-on-raspberry-pi-first-impressions/ -
@EddieJennings said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
I’ve had a little time to think this through. It seems like offering virtual desktops through Linux could be as simple as having something like Guacamole set up. Users could use whatever computer they want as long as they have a browser, they login to Guacamole, have their desktop presented and be on their way. I’m probably oversimplifying Guacamole, but at a high level that seems like what’s going on.
Of course, same as on Windows. But this is neither application virtualization in the real sense, nor is it in the XenApp sense. This is nothing more than yet another remote desktop solution like RDP, VNC, NX, etc. Guacamole is simply a tool to convert those into an HTML5 interface. It is great stuff, but in no way relates to what you seem to have been asking about in the thread.
