Talk:Citrix Systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Florida  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida.
If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Technology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Computing  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


This article reads like a page on a company's marketing website, rather than a factual Wikipedia article. (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Would you be able to be more specific about which elements you feel are marketing rather than factual? I'd be keen to make any further edits to ensure this fits within the guidelines --Richard Botley (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Old Days[edit]

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)

Citrix Ready[edit]

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)


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)


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)

Someone is trying to sell shares[edit]

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 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

External links[edit]

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; (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 for these reasons, and also because it's closed. I'm not seeing the relevance of 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). 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)

re: General[edit]

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

Heavy POV in Layoffs section[edit]

I'm fully removing GregorB's recently-contributed "Layoffs" section; it cites no sources and has a clearly non-neutral tone. If anyone can pick out the facts, find citations, and re-integrate them into the article, please do. The text of Gregor's contribution is below. -- Control.valve (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to mismanagement, Citrix has laid off 10% of its employees world-wide. The "global" figure deliberately under-represents the severity of the downsizing. Citrix has over the past 10 years, outsourced most of its jobs to India. During the great downsizing of 2009, Citrix did not cut one of it's Indian jobs, which pay less than 10% of the USA/UK positions. In actuality, Citrix eliminated 25% of its US and UK employees.

Ironically, the total salaries of all employees fired is a tiny fraction of the money Citrix spent acquiring each of the companies listed in the "Acquisitions" section of this Wikipedia page. Furthermore, the mass firings occurred a few months after CEO Mark Templeton bragged about his new Tesla Roadster, a car that costs more than most of his employees make in a year, by producing this YouTube video and sending an email to all employees about it. Thus leading Citrix employees to ask, "Hey Mark, how's that Roadster of yours? Still runs good?" Before the layoffs, Citrix executives repeatedly told employees during "all hands" meetings that Citrix was in good financial standing and could weather the storm. After the layoffs, remaining employees wondered how many other "white lies" executives told during those meetings.

Despite the layoffs, Citrix stock continues to nose dive as the company fails to keep up with its prime competitor, VMWare. Citrix recently scrapped its plans to implement a three-tiered database architecture for its platform in order to play catch up with VMWare. Citrix has a site license to the VMWare platform and often tests Citrix software within VMWare images.

Despite the massive layoffs, Citrix must port all of its code from private Microsoft APIs to public ones before their license agreement expires at the end of the year. Much of this work might now have to be done in India.

-- (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC) It seems to me that the author of this piece is probably part of the 10% and besides the fact that the text is non-neutral it might actually contain confidential information, for which this person (if indeed an ex-employee) can be prosecuted.

why we use citrix softwares[edit]

I want to know what is reason behind using the citrix softwares/systems

I want to what is the specialization in citrix

Thank & regards sanjay Gupta

why we use II[edit]

I too would like to know what the big deal is? This article totally fails to explain to me what if any use Citrix's gear is. Their aquisition of Xen I am fully across, but virtual machines are a whole subject domain unto themselves. As far as I can glean.....(1) they have some kind of improved desktop transmitter (ie. the stuff that X could do in 1980 or that you can more or less do with VNC)....(2) I have seen Citrix used in a workplace to 'lock down' a windows system - perhaps providing a decent security model by heavily modifying windows' own woefully inadquate one? I DONT KNOW. And this article hasn't helped me know. (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What is "Citrix"?[edit]

What is a "Citrix" specialist? (Quite a bunch of job offers seem to include a term like that.) Does he mostly do, what a VMware specialist does: hypervisor? Or does he maybe mostly do thin client (terminal server?) stuff? The article seems not clear to me ... is it not the company, who puts the focus on their currently main area of business, but the public perception -> so is it alright not to be included in an article about the company? But then, where might it be OK, to be included in a wikipedia source of information? --Alien4 (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Working to improve this article[edit]

Hi there, I wanted to introduce myself to any editors watching this page: working on behalf of Citrix I'll be offering some suggestions here to help improve this article. My main focus will be getting the article in line with the guidelines at WikiProject Companies. In particular, I'm hoping to add up-to-date information on the corporate organization and making sure the Products section is written up into prose and updated. To be clear, I won't be making any direct edits to the article due to my financial conflict of interest, but instead will prepare drafts and share them for editors to review and take live, if they look ok.

To begin with, I'm working on a draft for a more developed History section, since this is currently quite short and sparse on information about the company's major developments. Also, I think that it might be best to roll the Microsoft relationship information into this section, rather than it having its own section. I welcome any comments or additional suggestions editors might have. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposing new draft for History[edit]

Hi again. As promised some months ago, I have returned with a proposed new draft for the History section of the article. As you might be able to tell from my absence here, this took a bit longer than expected to finish! The section is fairly lengthy, so I've placed it in my user space for editors to review:

Most of the current section content is retained, although I did reword a few things for clarity and to make sure they were accurate and true to the sources. To help the article flow and place things into their historical context, I incorporated the details from the Microsoft relationship section into the History section. Other than what was in that section, the years from 1995 to present were spotty (to say the least), so I've greatly expanded on that time period, including major events, acquisitions, and new products the company developed.

I appreciate any time editors can spend looking over my proposed draft. As stated previously, I'm hoping another editor can take this live if it looks ok. I'm open to any suggestions or changes to make it ready to move to the article. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Overall, I think the draft looks pretty good. I have just a couple of thoughts.
  • There are a couple of times the CITRIX blog is used as a source. Is it possible to find a newspaper, magazine, book, or other reliable, secondary source in those cases?
  • There are three links to disambiguation pages: Chevron, server, and telecom. It would be nice if they linked to the direct intended articles.
I'll do a bit more spot-checking of sources to content, but so far it's looking good.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carole! Thanks so much for taking a look at the draft! I'm looking again into finding alternate sources for the information that the blog is used to support, although I'd tried hard to only use the blog in cases where it was difficult to find a more reliable source and the information felt important to include. Meantime, I'll make sure to fix those disambig links, thanks for spotting those! And it's a good reminder to me to check each link in the draft once I upload to user space. I'll ping back here once I've updated the links and have any news on the sourcing. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
16912_Rhiannon, Thanks for checking in, looking forward to seeing the updates!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi again Carole, an update here to let you know that I have:
  • Replaced / removed the two instances where the source Citrix Blogger was used. In one case, I was able to find a new source to support the info (the origins of the Citrix name) and in the other, I've tweaked the wording about WinView so that it can be supported solely by the other source I had there
  • Fixed the disambig links you mentioned above
  • Made a couple of other small tweaks to the wording / paragraph breaks to help improve flow
With regards to the one place where I'd used the Citrix blog to support the announcement of a partnership with Google, that was to support that the partnership began in 2010 (rather than 2014 per news articles I was finding). What I did there was phrased the sentence as "Citrix announced in 2010" (which is what the blog supports) and then included an independent news source from 2015 to support everything else about the deal. Since the source is supporting just the date and the other details are backed up by an independent source, what do you think about keeping this one instance? Thanks again for looking at this! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Great job,16912_Rhiannon! I've updated the History section in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! The History section looks really great now. I'll be back soon with some infobox updates, and then I'll have another section draft... Hope you can help with those, but no worries if you get busy elsewhere. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And I realized right as I posted this, that I meant to ask: Carole, would you be able to remove the Microsoft relationship section? This material is now all included within the History. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, 16912_Rhiannon regarding upcoming changes! I removed the Microsoft section.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)