Talk:Citrix Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 The Old Days 2 Citrix Ready 3 General 4 Rewrite 5 Someone is trying to sell shares 6 External links 7 re: General

[edit] The Old Days

I am a long term Citrix employee that would like to see the history of Citrix be captured as accurately as possible. I have dedicated much time on my blog to write about specific aspects of Citrix history but have been wary of putting the information into Wikipedia. Obviously I need someone that is fairly Citrix neutral and a better writer to make sure the right things happen.

Please review my blog entries relevant to Citrix history [1]. I'm sure that most are not relevant to submission to Wikipedia but I could not reliably tell you which ones are of the most interest.

Jeffrey.muir 11:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citrix Ready

This section is obviously written by a salesperson or someone with similar marketing bias. It needs to be deleted or rewritten.Tolstoy143: Quos vult perdere dementat 18:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] General

Citrix products are now widely used in both public and private sectors, although they are often deployed as a tactical rather than a strategic choice (achieving specific objectives or solving a specific problem rather than as part of a systematic plan).

I disagree with this assertion. We see a very large number of clients who use Citrix as a strategic approach to software deployment and delivery. I would restate this as follows:

Citrix products are now widely used in both public and private sectors. A company might select Citrix for its short term tactical advantages, or for its long term strategic benefits. (Of course, this will vary from company to company depending on each specific company's needs.)

"A company might select Citrix for its short term tactical advantages, or for its long term strategic benefits." ........such as?Tolstoy143: Quos vult perdere dementat 18:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I undertook a substantial rewrite of this article, partly to eliminate the narrative style of much of the article, and to clean up sloppy grammar. There is a lot of work that needs to be done, and there is a dearth of information about the early years of the company available on the web; their own website does not contain any reports or press releases prior to 2000, and the company history is limited to milestones such as acquisitions and product releases. The original creator of this article was apparently someone connected with the company early on, as there is a lot of "inside-player" information about the relationship between one of the founders and the board of directors, but there is no sourcing for any of the information, and it may need to be flagged as such. Horologium 18:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone is trying to sell shares

it sounds more like someone is trying to sell shares rather explain what the company is about what are they making ?? who uses there products ? those are the kind of question i want answered —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.175.3 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I'm reverting one EL edit because it: (a) replaced what appears to be an independent citrix employee community site with a link to the citrix domain (which is already linked), for a page that's linked right on the citrix home page; (b) broke the good link to dabcc.com; (c) added two commercial links that may be relevant but would need more than that to belong here. --Rich Janis (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some discussion of which independent support sites should be listed here. As I see it, none of them is essential to the article, but most important is that the list not proliferate arbitrarily. Rich Janis (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

None of them being essential, according to a loose interpretation of one of the points at WP:EL, is a good reason for removing them. It says, "A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." This is a basic argument against all third-party community sites, since they fall under the category of Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. The encyclopedia should link to the official site, or to ones that provide relevant encyclopedic information.

I think we should remove citrite.org for these reasons, and also because it's closed. I'm not seeing the relevance of Frameworkx.com either – I don't see how the blog of these two Microsoft employees is relevant to the article, even if one of them does work for Citrix. Am I missing something here? It's just that last time I tried to clean up a load of external links I got told off for it (virtually all the links were eventually removed, though). Dabcc.com says it's a Citrix partner, so per "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any", it sounds like we should link to them, though it seems to be a fairly useless and spammy sort of site (my personal opinion). Ideally, I reckon the only link that should stay in this case is the official web site. • Anakin ^(talk) 20:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: General

Citrix does not specialize in "thin clients". This statement is incorrect. Citrix does not even sell thin clients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.60.50 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)