We are using Xen server virtualization in our data center, and we like
it. We use the licensed version from Citrix in order to get
professional support.

This qualifies us to receive the gamut of Citrix virtualization
marketing materials and invitations to Citrix events. Amusingly, none
of these have anything to do with the products we use. They are
entirely devoted to Xen desktop and application virtualization
products.

It is clear that Citrix bought Xensource from its founder and the
University of Cambridge with the full intention of using it to create
these products. Why? In the words of famed bank robber Willy Sutton,
like banks, "It's where they keep the money."

So far, I have yet to see anything other than marketing fluff to
support the argument that commercial desktop virtualization products
are cost effective. The big difference between server virtualization
and the kind of desktop virtualization we are discussing (as opposed
to, say, Parallels) is that server virtualization requires not
additional hardware. The real savings, according to the sales folks,
comes from IT operations. At least that is the theory.

As you mention, we have seen many iterations on this theme from dumb
terminals and serial distribution to virtualization, and these all
depend on a belief that those solutions are cost effective. Were there
not existing, cheaper ways of remotely managing desktops and desktop
applications that work on inexpensive commodity hardware, it might be
easier to make that argument.

Thanks,

Cary

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 7:46 AM, Karen Schneider <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear C4L community,
>
> One of the VPs on campus asks me from time to time on trends with
> virtualization in academic settings -- specifically, virtualized desktops.
>
> My own response (qualified with "I am not an IT person, but...") has been
> that I believe, based on what I read, that this highly-promising technology
> isn't more widespread for several interrelated reasons (that are also
> applicable to our campus environment:
>
> a) ROI is not as clear, especially in smaller environments (startup cost,
> network, storage);
> b) university WANs are often not be robust enough to support virtualized
> desktops (and I'd add, we're on an uphill Sisyphean climb with
> bandwidth--there will never be enough of it);
> c) outside of the lab/classroom environment (where I think an argument can
> be made for virtualization, if other conditions are met, and the campus has
> the expertise to deploy/manage this environment), the ROI of a virtualized
> desktop may be mooted by the need for individualized desktops;
> d) it's a single point of failure.
>
> My down-home-country-librarian observation that I always tack on (with
> plenty of disclaimers) is "If virtualization were the answer, we'd see more
> of it by now." I realize that's a humble insight, but given how many talks
> I've been to over the past decade about what virtualization *would* be
> doing, versus what it *has* done, I think it's not entirely invalid.
>
> I also pointed the Veep toward this article:
>
> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/061809-desktop-virtualization.html
>
> So... any thoughts? Resources? POVs? Etc.? (If you want more context for
> this inquiry, write me off-list.)
>
> Thanks, dear old C4L community--
>
> Karen G. Schneider
> Director for Library Services
> Holy Names University
> http://library.hnu.edu
> [log in to unmask]
>



-- 
Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company
http://chillco.com