Author: mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Posted: 2017-08-11 11:58:20 Link
Anyone have VFP apps running on Citrix? Any special configurations that
have to be done? Any gotchas?
A potential client of mine uses Citrix and is very happy with it. He
said they basically wipe/replace the image daily. I guess that way they
don't have to worry about viruses? If I were to develop a desktop app
for them, I'd have to consider how to upgrade it easily. He said
updating/creating the image is usually painful and takes a long time.
tia,
--Mike
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/bfefcfe7a4c12fa35ef6053f5c867b34@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
We used Citrix at a healthcare company I worked at around 2005. Basically everyone came in to an office, just to telecommute into our hosted servers that was in a city 30 minutes north of our office. It was a valid approach to better securing workstations.
I was doing a good bit if VFP9 at that time and there wasn't much (if anything) that I had to do to the application. I tended to make the buttons bigger because with the remote-aspect of running the app, the double+clicks didn't always "take". We called it "having to triple+click" ... or ... "click it like you mean it!" It had more to do with Windows and the nature of following the mouse movement from local to remote.
They had portable profiles however. They didn't wipe the image as there were valid reasons that people would have customized desktops and customized software installations, even if the Windows was remote.
This approach saved us on PC purchases as well. We could buy pretty minimal PCs as the real horsepower was in the Citrix VM'd PCs.
Hth,
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 12:58 PM
To: ProFox
Subject: VFP9SP2 apps on Citrix
Anyone have VFP apps running on Citrix? Any special configurations that have to be done? Any gotchas?
A potential client of mine uses Citrix and is very happy with it. He said they basically wipe/replace the image daily. I guess that way they don't have to worry about viruses? If I were to develop a desktop app for them, I'd have to consider how to upgrade it easily. He said updating/creating the image is usually painful and takes a long time.
tia,
--Mike
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/F82DB4DE49440845A14B540F6C2DF6A92EEA8DFB@BLUFITSPMBS01.cherokeega.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Mike
I think SYS(602) exists because of these types of applications...just make
a note of it.
Bill Anderson
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 9:58 AM, <
mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com> wrote:
> Anyone have VFP apps running on Citrix? Any special configurations that
> have to be done? Any gotchas?
>
> A potential client of mine uses Citrix and is very happy with it. He said
> they basically wipe/replace the image daily. I guess that way they don't
> have to worry about viruses? If I were to develop a desktop app for them,
> I'd have to consider how to upgrade it easily. He said updating/creating
> the image is usually painful and takes a long time.
>
> tia,
> --Mike
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CA+O1enGCAwty=Vat6w+_djWxq2_ifhNKrJAqpj1agocSFZcGug@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Citrix started as Terminal Services with knobs on. These days what they
mainly do is desktop virtualisation.
--
Alan Bourke
alanpbourke (at) fastmail (dot) fm
On Fri, 11 Aug 2017, at 05:58 PM,
mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com wrote:
> Anyone have VFP apps running on Citrix? Any special configurations that
> have to be done? Any gotchas?
>
> A potential client of mine uses Citrix and is very happy with it. He
> said they basically wipe/replace the image daily. I guess that way they
> don't have to worry about viruses? If I were to develop a desktop app
> for them, I'd have to consider how to upgrade it easily. He said
> updating/creating the image is usually painful and takes a long time.
>
> tia,
> --Mike
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/1502485625.2739565.1070797408.1B19FF32@webmail.messagingengine.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Posted: 2017-08-11 20:59:04 Link
On 2017-08-11 16:32, Bill Anderson wrote:
> Mike
>
> I think SYS(602) exists because of these types of applications...just
> make
> a note of it.
Interesting. My Win7Pro 64-bit laptop returns 256 for OS(10). Didn't
think this would be considered having a Terminal Server present?
Thanks for the tip. I don't recall ever reading about SYS(602).
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/62caad39ed0cd839c83db7856976300d@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Author: mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Posted: 2017-08-11 21:02:03 Link
On 2017-08-11 14:55, Kevin J Cully wrote:
> We used Citrix at a healthcare company I worked at around 2005.
> Basically everyone came in to an office, just to telecommute into our
> hosted servers that was in a city 30 minutes north of our office. It
> was a valid approach to better securing workstations.
>
> I was doing a good bit if VFP9 at that time and there wasn't much (if
> anything) that I had to do to the application. I tended to make the
> buttons bigger because with the remote-aspect of running the app, the
> double+clicks didn't always "take". We called it "having to
> triple+click" ... or ... "click it like you mean it!" It had more to
> do with Windows and the nature of following the mouse movement from
> local to remote.
>
> They had portable profiles however. They didn't wipe the image as
> there were valid reasons that people would have customized desktops
> and customized software installations, even if the Windows was remote.
>
> This approach saved us on PC purchases as well. We could buy pretty
> minimal PCs as the real horsepower was in the Citrix VM'd PCs.
>
> Hth,
> Kevin
Thanks for sharing that, Kevin. If you had to design an app for the
"wipe daily" scenario, how would you do it? Personally, I think Andy
Kramek's idea (years ago!) of using meta-data that had code in memo/text
fields may work well for this scenario. Andy's approach may not have
been good for source code control (as per one detractor), but the idea
of self-updating easily was on-point, imo.
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/e92440a0af832b72145442114edcbabb@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
Mike,
New one on me as well.... never even noticed it.... just goes to show!
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Sent: 12 August 2017 02:59
To: ProFox Email List <profox@leafe.com>
Subject: Re: VFP9SP2 apps on Citrix
On 2017-08-11 16:32, Bill Anderson wrote:
> Mike
>
> I think SYS(602) exists because of these types of applications...just
> make a note of it.
Interesting. My Win7Pro 64-bit laptop returns 256 for OS(10). Didn't think this would be considered having a Terminal Server present?
Thanks for the tip. I don't recall ever reading about SYS(602).
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/18725B8CD2D5D247873A2BAF401D4AB2B47A823B@EX2010-A-FPL.FPL.LOCAL
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
One of the benefits of VFP is that you might be able to run the application from a central server. Nothing to be installed on the workstation itself? Might be worth testing.
Another approach is to have the workstations run a "stub" that creates a directory on the workstation and copies the VFP runtimes, and EXE locally with enough to get it running. Tonight the workstation is wiped. Tomorrow that same stub is run and the VFP app is copied locally again. Again, might be worth testing out. Nowadays, the VFP runtime files are tiny compared to the .NET runtimes! :O :D
Good luck.
-----Original Message-----
From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 10:02 PM
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: RE: VFP9SP2 apps on Citrix
On 2017-08-11 14:55, Kevin J Cully wrote:
> We used Citrix at a healthcare company I worked at around 2005.
> Basically everyone came in to an office, just to telecommute into our
> hosted servers that was in a city 30 minutes north of our office. It
> was a valid approach to better securing workstations.
>
> I was doing a good bit if VFP9 at that time and there wasn't much (if
> anything) that I had to do to the application. I tended to make the
> buttons bigger because with the remote-aspect of running the app, the
> double+clicks didn't always "take". We called it "having to
> triple+click" ... or ... "click it like you mean it!" It had more to
> do with Windows and the nature of following the mouse movement from
> local to remote.
>
> They had portable profiles however. They didn't wipe the image as
> there were valid reasons that people would have customized desktops
> and customized software installations, even if the Windows was remote.
>
> This approach saved us on PC purchases as well. We could buy pretty
> minimal PCs as the real horsepower was in the Citrix VM'd PCs.
>
> Hth,
> Kevin
Thanks for sharing that, Kevin. If you had to design an app for the "wipe daily" scenario, how would you do it? Personally, I think Andy Kramek's idea (years ago!) of using meta-data that had code in memo/text fields may work well for this scenario. Andy's approach may not have been good for source code control (as per one detractor), but the idea of self-updating easily was on-point, imo.
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/F82DB4DE49440845A14B540F6C2DF6A92EEA9C60@BLUFITSPMBS01.cherokeega.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
I have a general purpose "Loader" app that loads the .exe from the server onto the local workstation in a pre-defined folder and runs it. This means that updating the .exe on the server is simple as you are sure that it is never open by anyone. In addition I can send the loader instructions to unload the local .exe if there is a workstation server update due. It unloads the local "exe" and sits waiting for a signal to upload the newer updated .exe off the server. And it has saved hors of trouble finding out who has the application open on the network.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
Sent: 12 August 2017 03:02
To: ProFox Email List <profox@leafe.com>
Subject: RE: VFP9SP2 apps on Citrix
On 2017-08-11 14:55, Kevin J Cully wrote:
> We used Citrix at a healthcare company I worked at around 2005.
> Basically everyone came in to an office, just to telecommute into our
> hosted servers that was in a city 30 minutes north of our office. It
> was a valid approach to better securing workstations.
>
> I was doing a good bit if VFP9 at that time and there wasn't much (if
> anything) that I had to do to the application. I tended to make the
> buttons bigger because with the remote-aspect of running the app, the
> double+clicks didn't always "take". We called it "having to
> triple+click" ... or ... "click it like you mean it!" It had more to
> do with Windows and the nature of following the mouse movement from
> local to remote.
>
> They had portable profiles however. They didn't wipe the image as
> there were valid reasons that people would have customized desktops
> and customized software installations, even if the Windows was remote.
>
> This approach saved us on PC purchases as well. We could buy pretty
> minimal PCs as the real horsepower was in the Citrix VM'd PCs.
>
> Hth,
> Kevin
Thanks for sharing that, Kevin. If you had to design an app for the "wipe daily" scenario, how would you do it? Personally, I think Andy Kramek's idea (years ago!) of using meta-data that had code in memo/text fields may work well for this scenario. Andy's approach may not have been good for source code control (as per one detractor), but the idea of self-updating easily was on-point, imo.
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/18725B8CD2D5D247873A2BAF401D4AB2B47ADADC@EX2010-A-FPL.FPL.LOCAL
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
I did something similar - nothing clever, just a batch file that copied the
executable from the server to the work stations
Laurie
On 14 August 2017 at 15:46, Dave Crozier <DaveC@flexipol.co.uk> wrote:
> I have a general purpose "Loader" app that loads the .exe from the server
> onto the local workstation in a pre-defined folder and runs it. This means
> that updating the .exe on the server is simple as you are sure that it is
> never open by anyone. In addition I can send the loader instructions to
> unload the local .exe if there is a workstation server update due. It
> unloads the local "exe" and sits waiting for a signal to upload the newer
> updated .exe off the server. And it has saved hors of trouble finding out
> who has the application open on the network.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ProFox [mailto:profox-bounces@leafe.com] On Behalf Of
> mbsoftwaresolutions@mbsoftwaresolutions.com
> Sent: 12 August 2017 03:02
> To: ProFox Email List <profox@leafe.com>
> Subject: RE: VFP9SP2 apps on Citrix
>
> On 2017-08-11 14:55, Kevin J Cully wrote:
> > We used Citrix at a healthcare company I worked at around 2005.
> > Basically everyone came in to an office, just to telecommute into our
> > hosted servers that was in a city 30 minutes north of our office. It
> > was a valid approach to better securing workstations.
> >
> > I was doing a good bit if VFP9 at that time and there wasn't much (if
> > anything) that I had to do to the application. I tended to make the
> > buttons bigger because with the remote-aspect of running the app, the
> > double+clicks didn't always "take". We called it "having to
> > triple+click" ... or ... "click it like you mean it!" It had more to
> > do with Windows and the nature of following the mouse movement from
> > local to remote.
> >
> > They had portable profiles however. They didn't wipe the image as
> > there were valid reasons that people would have customized desktops
> > and customized software installations, even if the Windows was remote.
> >
> > This approach saved us on PC purchases as well. We could buy pretty
> > minimal PCs as the real horsepower was in the Citrix VM'd PCs.
> >
> > Hth,
> > Kevin
>
>
> Thanks for sharing that, Kevin. If you had to design an app for the "wipe
> daily" scenario, how would you do it? Personally, I think Andy Kramek's
> idea (years ago!) of using meta-data that had code in memo/text fields may
> work well for this scenario. Andy's approach may not have been good for
> source code control (as per one detractor), but the idea of self-updating
> easily was on-point, imo.
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/CAMvTR9cu7OUwTf4gS-9+8ei=4herOjnswod8SfCdCKkuCXLYeQ@mail.gmail.com
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.