Slashdot Mirror

If anything, I'd like to see an FOSS version of Microsoft's SoftGrid application virtualization software.

http://www.softricity.com/

You can already do this. It's called virtualization. Check out http://www.softricity.com/ (which, as it seems, was bought by Microsoft).

There are several companies that produce application "streaming" or "sequencing" products that might fit your bill. Check out http://www.softricity.com/ as probably the best example. They basically keep the application data on a server (as opposed to the entire OS image) and then stream it down in chunks as the user needs it. Softricity is the best in the market at this point because they also run a virtualized environment around the apps so they can run without any conflicts. Great if you need to load two different versions of the same app on one box. The systems are then just clean base OS installs and the cached apps can be instantly cleared for things like patching or other maintenance. A lot less hassle than a full virtual desktop deployment. --TP in UT

Actually, this is exactly the direction that Microsoft seems to be taking with Vista. I just got back from the MS TechEd conference and I was able to talk to some of the folks on the Vista team. They are already doing some nice work with virtualization to keep users from having to run with administrative privileges to make an application work. Add to this the recent announcement (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2006/ may06/05-22Virtualization.mspx) of Microsoft's intention to acquire a company called Softricity (http://www.softricity.com/) that sells a product that does application virtualization. With Virtual PC and Virtual Server in the mix I'd say that MS might well be on the verge of doing some interesting work.

Could this be the reason why they're purchasing Softricity? (Other than the obvious reason that SoftGrid is kick-ass)

I would recommend Windows administrators to use tools like Softricity (http://www.softricity.com/) to manage their applications. You can look at this as running the software locally, in its own protected environment, with binaries (dll's, ...) loaded as required from the server. A software upgrade is simply replacing a package once at the main server, all clients will have the new version upon next double-click.

This is not quite the same as installing thunderbird on all machines and moving symlinks (even if it is scripted), but it is probably the only decent way to manage software packages on anything above 500 boxes :).

And there's a "disconnected operation" mode, where the server can go away (or, more likely, the laptop can go on the road) and the apps are still available for a(n IT-configurable) number of days.

Since the app streams to the client, each server can support thousands of users instead of Citrix's 50 or so. A thin client model works great when the clients are "dumb" Windows terminals, but companies aren't buying them because as was pointed out here, full-blown computers cost the same or less and are more flexible, so are better value. Thin-client in that environment means the extra processor, disk, and RAM go to waste since the apps are running on the server. Whereas with SoftGrid, the apps run on the client, which helps make better use of the entire IT investment.

It also works in conjunction with a Citrix environment. The Citrix server is the SoftGrid client, so it becomes [tt]hree-tiered. SoftGrid makes it easy to migrate (and add) Citrix servers with minimal administration, and if the application needs to be "reinstalled" the literal click of a button (and a confirmation dialog, so 2 clicks total) will clear the application from the cache, so the next time it is run it will start up slightly slower but will be fresh again. And terminal server administrators generally preload the cache on the servers, so no user experiences the initial load delay.

There is a lot more to it, and yes I am not entirely impartial. Check out the Flash demo on the site, it does a better job of explaining the platform and how it all works than I can.

1. Some applications conflict with other applications, requiring us to install them on separate Citrix servers ("server siloing", doubling the hardware and administration costs).

2. Performance over a slow link degrades to the point that fast typists could enter an entire line before seeing the first character appear.

3. The "thin client" model assumes that the client has little to no intelligence and just sends keystrokes/mouse movements up, and screen updates down. It doesn't use any of the local processor, RAM, or hard drive (like the old "green screens").

Since most companies (ours included) aren't purchasing "thin clients" because they end up costing about as much as a full-blown computer, we just bought computers for our employees. Running Citrix does not use the resources in our company to the fullest; most of the time those machines just sit there, idle.

We have found a great solution from a relatively small new company called Softricity.

Their product, SoftGrid, streams the application to the client. Your IT department will have to "sequence" the application (basically, install it in a monitored environment so it can determine what files, Registry entries, INI files, etc. to package up), and it creates a single file which contains everything. It also determines what pieces of that file are used when running the application, and streams that to the client initially (generally about 10-20% of the full package). When a client uses features that weren't in the initial section, the client will request them from the server.

As to the issues I mentioned above above:

1. This has completely solved our application conflicts; we can run any application next to any other application, on the same client machine. We also have some applications set up in a "three-tier" method, where the applications are streamed from the SoftGrid server to a Terminal Server, and then the clients connect to the Terminal Server and run their applications from there. With this model, anything Citrix would add to it is superfluous--we just use the basic TS functionality that Microsoft provides.

2. The link speed does not slow performance down, once the application has been loaded into the client's cache. And the user can load the entire app if desired, which helps with our laptop users--they load the application and can then run it disconnected from the network.

3. The software doesn't have to run on the server, since it uses local resources (RAM, disk, processor). This means our SoftGrid server can serve thousands of users (not that we have that many), whereas our Citrix server starts to slow down when we have more than 25 or so users on it.

Managing the environment is also made much easier with the Management Console, and being able to specify Registry entries in the startup file which will override the entries in the package, so for instance each user can have their own startup file which specifies their username, department, extension, etc. And if there's ever a problem with an application that requires, for instance, a reinstall, it's basically a 30-second operation to have the user bring up the Control Panel application, remove the application from cache, and then run the application again which starts it back at the same state it was at when it was initially packaged.

I've been very happy with their solution, and although it's not cheap it's cost-similar to Citrix, and gives us more benefits and more flexibility (our traveling salespeople love it, since they don't have to connect in order to run applications).

What's the primary requirement of a utility? It has to work. If you turn the water faucet on, you expect to get water; if you plug a lamp into a wall socket, you expect electricity; when you pick up your phone, you expect to hear a dial tone.

Check out Softricity.

They're a combination of "Software" and "Electricity". It's not perfect yet, but they go a long way toward making computing painless by virtualizing the environment, so applications run in their own "sandbox" and have their own Registry and file system -- so there's no more DLL hell, and no conflicting Registry settings.

It's really neat to run application through SoftGrid, on the same machine, which cannot even be installed on the same machine, normally. This saves companies a ton of money in Citrix implementations, because previously they had to have server farms, "silos" with conflicting application on separate servers; using SoftGrid, they can run them all on the same server.

We use their software and it has saved a ton of money in administration and support costs. It's Windows-only, but currently most businesses run Windows (we do, although I'm pushing Linux). The great part is it saves money, so it's fairly simple to get into the budget (it pays for itself in 2-6 months, depending on the size of your organization; ours is already paid for and making us money now in reduced IT costs).

Running an applictation without installing is a great idea for some purposes [...]

If you like this idea, you might be interested in a company called Softricity -- they make an install-less environment for Windows, and the software runs in a virtual environment (virtual registry and file system), so if two applications have conflicts and cannot be run on the same machine, run them through Softricity's environment and they can run on the same machine!

This is amazing for environments with Citrix silos, with apps that must be installed on specific Citrix servers and not others; with Softricity, they can be run on all the Citrix servers, meaning you can eliminate servers from your environment and save on hardware costs, management, electricity, etc.

I love their stuff and use it daily.

If two such demands are incompatible, you're out of luck because Microsoft doesn't let you install two versions of the software at the same time. Most Unix packages can have multiple version co-existing at the same time.

I haven't used their software, but it appear that Softricity has a good solution for this. They basically create "jails" for each application, which can have its own registry, DLLs, etc. You can have multiple "jails" on a server, so this really helps out with, for instance, a Citrix farm -- you can have all the apps on one machine, instead of one app per machine, even if the apps have conflicting dependencies.

Thin-client technology in the Windows world is getting pretty robust these days, between Microsoft's Terminal Services, Citrix Metaframe and competitiors like Tarantella and New Moon's Canaveral.

Also, Citrix Metaframe for Unix allows you to run Unix apps remotely using the ICA protocol, which is a bit "thinner" than X11.

So using one of the products above, a several of which have clients for PocketPC, you can run Windows or Unix apps. No sweat. To take it one step further, you can serve up the apps to the thin-client server using something like Softricity's SoftGrid which "virtualizes" the applications - they run in a little OS "bubble" so you don't actually have to install them on your app server - so you won't have old crappy legacy apps stomping on eachother when you run them on the same box.

I hope this company has a few more tricks, because I don't see anything new or special in their products.

-Jeff

The article (on Gamespy) was overly optimistic. This type of technology works fairly well in fast a LAN environment (maybe an internet cafe that caters to gamers) but over home broadband, it's just not where it needs to be for content-heavy games. Loading faster than a CD? I'm seriously doubtful, since I've worked for companies delivering similar services.

Companies like Exent with their Games on Demand type solution and Softricity with their application on demand stuff have come a long way, by making local caches secure to thwart pirates, and by utilizing algorithms to anticipate what parts of the code you will need next, reducing the wait when a new code chunk needs to be downloaded. But the fact remains that at this point, if you have a dedicated line (DSL) your bandwidth probably isn't much higher than 640K, and if you're on cable, who knows what you're really getting when your neighbor is downloading bootleg porno for his collection.

Diablo-style games that generate dungeons on demand can suffer from serious lag because all of the code, at one point or another, has to get pulled across the wire. And when you're surrounded by 500 orcs trying to hack your way to freedom, do you really want the game to get choppy and unresponsive? Racing games that load everything and then just run from memory work much better, but you still wait. The idea is sound, but games are just too bloated for the average guy's broadband pipe. Maybe in a year or five, if access gets faster and cheaper.

-Jeff