Thinstall :: "Agentless" Virtualization?
Submitted by Scott Jones on 21 December, 2007 - 17:12.
I got a question about Thinstall internally this week and wanted to share (at least part of) my response here. Obvious disclaimers that a) I work for Symantec, and b) the opinions below are my own. The question was whether Thinstall offers "agentless" virtualization.
Thinstall brags about being "agentless" (and also "serverless," which begs the question just exactly what the heck are they selling if there are no bytes at all?! I'm joking, of course... ). What they really mean is that their agent is embedded in the application packages, so it does not need to be pre-installed. While this is interesting for the consumer market and has gained them some favorable press (see this recent CRN bake-off), it's an unviable approach for managed environments for the following reasons:
- The Thinstall agent includes emulation of hundreds of Windows functions that are regularly updated by Microsoft, so regular (trailing) updates from Thinstall are essential.
- Multiple copies of the agent end up on clients, which must be updated separately.
- The only way to update each and every agent is to update (read: repackage!) every virtualized application in the central repositories and re-deliver every package to every client.
- There is no replication between software repositories (unless using something like Altiris on the back end), so each server must be manually updated with every package.
- Each running instance of the agent consumes massive amounts of RAM -- we have observed 50 MB+ consumed by a single Thinstall agent, so running multiple virtualized apps simultaneously become impractical fast, and performance degrades quickly.
So I would call Thinstall "agent-ful". Lots of agents, using lots of resources.
The approach of Symantec (and other app virtualization vendors such as Microsoft and Citrix) is more familiar to IT administrators and more appropriate for centralized management. A single, pre-installed agent means minimal disk and memory footprint (esp. with SVS, with a 187K disk footprint and 1 MB memory footprint). It also means a single point of maintenance, so that the virtualization technology may be updated separately from the applications. Also, a pre-installed agent can have rights different from the interactive user, which is essential in a managed environment (esp. on Vista!) -- a management agent of any kind must be able to do functions that IT policy does not allow to be delegated to the end user.
In a sense, the Thinstall approach violates the abstraction principle of virtualization. Apps are indeed abstracted out from the OS, but they are married to the virtualization technology. With SVS or everyone else, apps are also abstracted from the virtualization technology. The only thing in a package is the app. Lots of implications there... (like avoiding re-delivery and extra maintenance of the software library, etc.).
To accomplish dynamic loading of embedded agents, Thinstall has to use a pure user-space solution. Their collateral calls this out like it's an inherently wonderful thing, without explaining the limitations it introduces. Mainly, they are restricted on the types of apps they can virtualize, and certainly won't ever be able to handle drivers and OS patches like we plan to in future versions of SVS (never mind Data Layers, Quarantine Layers and the forthcoming AutoCapture). An Altiris partner with packaging expertise validated this with lab testing -- the result was something on the order of 90% success rate with SVS, 60% with SoftGrid and less than 50% with Thinstall.
[Another important thing to know about Thinstall is the "serverless" part. Like SVS, Thinstall can be used in a local, unmanaged mode. In fact, that's all there is to the Thinstall product. Whereas SVS gives you either Altiris Notification Server (included in SVS Standard) or a richly-featured, scalable streaming system (in SVS Professional, which also includes the NS/Task Server pieces), with Thinstall you use what you have for centralized management. And you can do that with SVS, too, if you wish, but the additional value props we discuss around Altiris Client Management Suite and/or the SVS Pro streaming system -- policy-driven, auditable provisioning, license management, version control, etc. -- are just simply outside Thinstall's scope.]
[As for any claim to "streaming" -- If you call running an executable off a network file share "streaming," well, 'nuff said... ]
I'm sorry if this sounds like bashing. Thinstall is really great for some use cases, like apps-on-a-stick. But I'll tell you, after looking at Thinstall, I really started to appreciate SoftGrid (at least in some regards). :) Some products are architected for corporate IT; some are not. My personal impression is that Thinstall is a technology optimized for delivery of commercial software to consumers. The design suggests the people who run the company have little understanding of the workings and requirements of corporate IT. Via their partnerships with BMC and LANDesk, they will likely gain that understanding over time.
Yes, I agree with you. If
Yes, I agree with you.
If its just for a single computer (Home PC) use, then Thinstall may look good.
But certainly it has its own drawbacks.
First of all its not Free like SVS for personal use :).
It always needs a “Clean PC” to do the setup capture.
The thinstalled apps certainly leave lots of crap behind, both in File system and in Registry. I have tried for few apps like I-Tunes, VCD Cutter, FireFox and some Apps that needs background services to be running all the time, which has taken longer time to load them (CPU usage was relatively high when comparing the apps running under normal way)
Also if your application has multiple Shortcuts / Exes, then there will be one Big file and the rest will be a small file. There is every chance that, people miss the big file and goes with the small file and land into embracement.
Thinstall = VMware's Hairball?
Ok, so VMware is buying Thinstall. Too bad for customers; it would have created a more competitive environment if they'd gone to a client management vendor like BMC, CA or Avocent/LANDesk. That's the type of company I expected Thinstall to go to, where it could have been rapidly infused with some perspective and morphed into a more viable offering.
VMware hasn't had an especially interesting client play so far and has not communicated a vision that leads me to believe they'll understand the space any time soon. I'm sorry, but given my opinion of Thinstall as reflected above, I can't imagine this is going to help.
Apparently I'm not the only person who feels this way. Want a good chuckle? Read Randall Kennedy's reaction to this acquisition announcement here!
Next to go: Trigence, I predict before the end of Q1.
Take overs
Most of the smaller company's that have some very good techniques and/or solutions are viable for takeovers.
VMWare has a very strong point by taking over Thinstall, and becomes the third player in this niche market.
Microsoft, Vmware and Symantec are now the big three, followed by small company's that have some reliant solutions.
Citrix comes with a Softgrid variant. Bringing the same problems.
Trigence is one of the company's that bring a SVS clone. SVS uses a standard non patented system that is fully integrated in Microsoft software. Trigence found, developed and brought this also to the market.
The IT landscape is changing very fast, and big fish ar now eating the smaller ones.
Regards
Erik
www.deltaisis.nl
SVS is Patented
Click to view.
...with several more applications pending (a few of them with my name on them).
Scott Jones
Product Manager
Altiris, Inc.
Now Part of Symantec
"success rates"
While I'm happy to see SVS is much higher than the rest, 90% seems low to me. What do the remaining 10% have in common that would deem them as failures?
My guess is Java and
My guess is Java and Drivers. Those are both things that you can get to work with us but SVS isn't designed to handle either one.
I fully agree
Scott,
I fully agree with you.
Thinstall should only be used on a local pc. In a multiuser environment it is even worse.
I saw a server crashing only by opening winzip for the second time.
Regards
Erik
www.deltaisis.nl
I do not agree
@Jordan,
Jordan, we do virtualize Java, but it is a hard process building the layer. Also we do drivers. But we separate the drivers in two sections.
We virtualize the applikation, and then see if it works. If it does not work, then we build a onpostactivate that copies the driver out of the layer to the local system at activation, and deletes it when you de-activate the layer.
This will ensure that the driver is not virtualized, but stay's local.
Some drivers do need a activation from the registry. In that case we also run a start.reg file that registeres and activates the driver.
I already builded several software packages this way, and it is a good way to handle this.
Regards
Erik
www.dvs4sbc.nl
SVS is best
from quite some time i have been comapring both thinstall and SVS.
What i realize is thinstall benefit over SVS is capturing of Frameworks, drivers and agent less installation of packages.
But there are more advantages of SVS like editing of layers is very user friendly, much much faster package creation and more over SVS is free for personal use.
have anybody tried virtualizing thinstall in SVS environment.
What i am looking forward in SVS is U3 support and compatible (co existing) with other drivers in same system.
response time of SVS Forum is very very fast.
it took a long time to get a 30 days evaluation copy of thinstall.
@Erik Whether you do or
@Erik
Whether you do or don't isn't the point of my statement, the point is SVS isn't designed to work with them which is why we say that Java and Drivers aren't supported, not that you couldn't possibly get them working.
@jordan
Jordan,
You are completely right.
I know SVS isn't designed to do this, as Deployemnt solution isn't designed to suppley multiple images on one computer, but the good stuff is: It can.
Looking forward meeting some of you in Las vegas in about two weeks
Regards
Erik
www.dvs4sbc.nl
Not very surprising (but equally wrong) article...
It would be weird to see a post in an SVS forum *not* say that SVS is better than Thinstall.
However, I would expect to see "REAL" arguments instead of make-up ones...
1) "The Thinstall agent includes emulation of hundreds of Windows functions that are regularly updated by Microsoft, so regular (trailing) updates from Thinstall are essential."
And do the hundred of thousands of applications that use those APIs also need "retrofitting"? Common! If that were the case, Windows would have sunk a LONG time ago! If Microsoft can be blamed for something is for striving too hard at making things stay compatible...
Sure, an occasional SP may have some new stuff that impacts some applications, but for the most part all the hundred minor patches they come up with for every OS during their lifetime mostly fix bugs and don't change the rules: that would be a way to loose customers if they had to constantly be contacting their software suppliers for updated versions every single patch...
As for points 2-4, because they're based on the wrong assumption of point 1 that thinstalled apps/engine need updating, they are also moot points.
The only "real" point could be point 5 about memory usage, but I'll gladly "throw" away 50 MB per application. I've tried quite a few programs that aim to Virtualize Applications and, from my own experience, thinstalled apps just run and usually from the very first time: Thinstall sure has the crappiest UI of all, but the virtualized apps just plain work. And I'll rather use something that gets the job done with less fuss than something that is much nicer to look at and doesn't get the job done.
Having said that, I've had a minor problem or two with thinstalled apps, but having each app have it's own engine is actually a good thing, IMO: if one crashes for any reason, it won't take the other virtualized apps along with it as could be the case with a shared engine...
I'm not affiliated with nor have any particular interest in Thinstall over other app virtualization programs, but if you guys want to trash the competition, at least use REAL arguments and not fake ones...
We Need Customer Perspective ref: Competing Products!
Sorry for the lengthy response here, but I want to be very clear. -SJ
- - -
Fernando, my philosophy on competitive claims is that they must be accurate or they are of no value to customers. Also, inaccurate competitive statements undermine our own business, because many customers (especially the ones who are in positions to spend the most money) will find us out and then we look foolish. Vendors who are fast and loose with the facts against Altiris (esp. Microsoft, LANDesk and most recently KACE) usually find their aggressive approach backfiring, as their credibility with the customer collapses as soon as the products in question get put in the lab.
At Novell, I had relationships with many of my peer Product Managers at competing vendors and routinely sent our competitive comparison matrix docs to them for review and comment. They weren't always willing to help, but many recognized that cooperation at that level is ultimately better for everyone. Also, one of the very first things I did as an Altiris employee was to correct inaccuracies in our internal competitive doc on Novell ZENworks, and then to get approval to pop the doc over to the lead ZEN PM for further sanity checking.
Most vendors (with a few exceptions that clearly feel "dirty pool" is necessary to compete, usually at their own peril) want a real understanding of competing products and want to provide accurate, useful information to customers. When you see either factual errors or (more commonly) misinterpretations as to the significance of an issue (which may be what we are talking about here with Thinstall's architecture), it's still usually written in good faith. The challenge is usually that the vendor is operating in a vacuum and has to do a lot of speculation as to the implications of this or that feature/characteristic of a competing product.
That's part of why we created this forum, so that we could get qualified information from customers who have examined or actually used the products. In addition, I also invited Jerry Chen from VMware (one of the senior guys involved in their client strategy) to not just review this thread but to post a response. Jerry forwarded the invitation on to someone who could help, but we haven't seen anything yet.
If we are misinterpreting the significance of the Thinstall agent's complexity and challenges in maintaining it (whether agent updates are related to Windows updates or not), well... we need to know that! So thank you very much for your perspective. Be assured that the observations are made in good faith. We do have corroboration, tho, albeit largely from others who have also only had the opportunity to give the product scrutiny in a lab. We'd love to hear from someone who's actually managing Thinstalled apps in an enterprise! In the absence of either real-world information or the input of the competitor, we are left to listen to other evaluators and to speculate in good faith.
I'll concede that updates to Windows interfaces is likely not a frequent driver for updates to the Thinstall agent. Regardless, esp. given the concurrence we have from our customers and partners who have evaluated Thinstall, for now I have to stand by the position that enterprise IT needs a separate, single, pre-installed agent for all the reasons discussed above, and that VMware's chance for success in the enterprise desktop management space is compromised until that implementation option is available.
Btw, another plus for Thinstall may be on Citrix. I spoke with a customer who pointed out that Thinstall is the only virtualization solution that will -- by default, anyway, as Virtuozzo and others could be set up to do it -- enable apps to work correctly in a multi-user environment that were not built for multi-user support. This is precisely because of the embedded agent and the fact that each user would get a completely new and isolated instance of the app. The load on the Citrix farm would be huge, but if it enables delivery of a mission-critical app, the customer may be grateful for the option! Even with SoftGrid and the forthcoming release of SVS, if the app itself can't support multi-user, we can't fix that. So if that customer's observation is valid, it's a plus for Thinstall that they should be exploiting.
I'd also like to point out that the competitive statements about us that I've seen so far directly from Thinstall (now VMware) have largely been sound and professional. They do often reveal the same lack of understanding of enterprise desktop management that I mention in the original post, but at least they show integrity.
Trigence
Btw, yesterday we had a customer say they are looking at Trigence. Only the second customer mention of Trigence since their Windows app virtualization product was launched last June. So they don't seem to be doing a very good job of awareness building. And Q1 came and went w/o an acquisition announcement. So much for my psychic ability! But I have to imagine conversations are taking place, esp. since Thinstall is off the market.
Comment on Scott's quote
Scott, in above quote you are referring to the thinstall's ability to use non multiuser aware apps in a multiuser environment.
The difference between a non multiuser app and a multiuser app is inside the registry.
In DVS4SBC there is a addition that handles this and also gives SVS the ability to use non multiuser aware programs the ability to become multiuser aware.
It leads to far to discuss this technical, but we are using this techniques already with several customers, and they are very happy with that.
Regards
Erik
www.dvs4sbc.nl
Bumped into another problem with Thinstall
One of our customers that is using Thinstall bumped into another problem.
There is a small update in the agent that should consume less memory then the older one.
This now means that the customer has to update all their thinstalled applications.
With over 55 apps, this means a lot of work.
Regards
Erik
www.dvs4sbc.nl
Now come on, all you have
Now come on, all you have to do to rebuild a package for Thinstall is to run the same "build.bat" file again... if you're lazy you could even automate this via batch files! This is as fas as exporting a "layer" and nearly the same process as well.
Software deployment + updating is also not very hard with Thinstall (maybe you weren't looking much into the features :-P) just rename the new version of myapp.exe to myapp.1 (or myapp.2 if you already had myapp.1 out there) and the next time someone requests the file (which can be on any standard file share...) he/she/it gets the new version instead. You also don't need the whole exe to run a program, parts that are needed are streamed to you.
Btw. Thinstall has 64bit Support and can handle applications that require rebooting during installation easily... *hint, hint*
All in all SVS and Thinstall (or now, ThinApp) are really not very different, both have their little pros (SVS: free, easier to capture, Thinstall: exe files, no client installation) + cons (SVS: no 64bit, client+package approach, Thinstall: expensive, AppLink needs a bit of fiddling around) and interestingly the product that would be much nicer + easier to use on a home pc is the one that costs 5000$ and has no free noncommercial license! :D
I think it would be much better to try to improve SVS instead of bashing Thinstall with cheap arguments that aren't even "stable" and just based on assumptions... If you just use Thinstall ne day and try to click through you will be about as lost as with SVS on the first day (who invented the term "layer" for a simple program sandbox anyway?!)
You are right, and Not?
Jose,
You are correct with your statements about Thinstall. I use thinstall, Softgrid and SVS for opur customers. I like SVS the most, because of the ease of packaging, deployment and of course the free for personal use approach.
Thinstall is indeed the best product for home use, but very expensive. I suspect that won't take long, because VMware has a good way of suppleying free programs, and payed programs.
What i do not like about Thinstall is the packaging. It is not as easy to build a good package as in SVS.
In SVS it is very plane simple, and i get the best results with SVS.
Regards
Erik
www.dvs4sbc.nl
You are right Erik
You are right Erik. Its real pain in creating packages in Thinstall.
For standalone PC / Home user, Thinstall is the best – Nothing to install. Just one EXE file. Unfortunately its not free. Not every one can afford for it.
I can’t find a free version of Vmware creator, which can take a snapshot of existing real to virtual machine.
By the way, got an alternate to Vmware is a good one.
Its virtual box. You may give a try. http://www.virtualbox.org/
I just downloaded today & I need to explore it a lot.
But I have a trouble with the virtual box, because my key board doesn’t have right side Ctrl & Alt keys to take the cursor out of the virtual to real :(
Does one have tried virtual box before ?
Install VirtualBox Guest Additions
I suggest to install the VirtualBox Guest Additions, in this way you should be able to increase performance and give more control to your Virtualbox configuration , including the mouse reconfiguration that will be movable between real and virtual box.