re: Application Virtualisation – Agent or Agentless Part II?

Agentless Lover — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:43:24 GMT

Your an idiot.

your saying you need an agent... but App-V wont do anything for you... you need SCCM as well to bring everything back.

agentless requires no agents, and SCCM with some simple queries can do the same job.

should we talk about agents and their local cache requirements too... and the cost of the disk space ?

re: Application Virtualisation – Agent or Agentless Part II?

stufox — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:44:14 GMT

Agentless Lover

I like to encourage discussion on my blog, but I'm not sure that starting with "your an idiot" is the best way for you to engage with me. Having said that, I'll endeavour to respond to your points:

I think you're going to need to clarify exactly what you're talking about when you say "App-V won't do anything for you". You can run App-V entirely without a ConfigMgr infrastructure, that's where the original App-V product started.

How much information does an agentless application package expose to the OS? Does it expose the full version of the application that is in the bundle, or does it expose information about the version of the embedded virtualisation agent in the bundle (because that's what agentless means - you've got a virtualisation agent that executes from inside the bundle)? Either way you've got a problem - if you see the full application information, you don't get to see what version of virtual layer you have in the package, which means if there is a security hole you really have no way to track that. And if you see the virutal application layer information, you don't get to see what the application information is, which means you can't inventory it and you can't track what updates etc have been pushed out.

In terms of disk footprint for local cache - what exactly is the smallest size HDD you can buy these days? Perhaps if you wanted to run on a 8GB SSD that might be a problem, but if you're using a standard desktop with a SATA drive disk space isn't usually going to be a problem for you.