My client is seeking a candidate to be responsible for designing, delivering and maintaining a secure, fast, effective, reliable Citrix physical and virtual Server Architecture ensuring the delivery of core and client service business applications.
12 month fixed term contract
Key Performance Areas:
Server Management and Administration – Citrix Servers
Install, configure and maintain Citrix Virtual environment (Citrix XenServer multiple pools and XenApp server farms).
About The Employer:
Learn more/Apply for this position
Ruri Ranbe has been working as a writer since 2008. She received an A.A. in English literature from Valencia College and is completing a B.S. in computer science at the University of Central Florida. Ranbe also has more than six years of professional information-technology experience, specializing in computer architecture, operating systems, networking, server administration, virtualization and Web design.
Citrix is a well-known American cloud software company. It was founded over three decades ago by the late Ed Iacobucci, a virtualization pioneer who began his career at IBM. The company, based in California, has over 400,000 enterprise clients worldwide, including most of the Fortune 100 and Fortune 500.
Citrix Hypervisor traces its roots to Xen, a virtualization software released in 2003 as a research project at the University of Cambridge. Citrix acquired XenSource, the company behind the Xen, in 2007 and, in 2018, renamed the enterprise version of Xen to Citrix Hypervisor.
The company currently employs nearly 10,000 people worldwide and has over $3 billion in annual sales.
Citrix Hypervisor is a free add-on for all customers that pay for Citrix desktop-as-a-service (DaaS). There's no standard pricing for Citrix DaaS-- you'll have to contact the company directly for a quote.
Yet, sample price estimates on Microsoft Azure's cloud platform show $20 per user per month for a 500-person contact center team and $18 per user per month for 1,000 office employees. It seems the unit price drops the more the number of users and rises the fewer the number.
A hypervisor is a software that creates and runs virtual machines. It enables one host computer to support multiple guest virtual machines by sharing its hardware resources.
A virtual machine (VM) is a software that emulates the functionality of a separate physical computer. For instance, you can run the Windows operating system on a MacBook laptop. Here, the Windows VM acts like its separate computer, and you can switch between it and your macOS operating system anytime.
There are many use cases for virtual machines. For example, you can use it to try a new operating system you’re considering adopting. Also, let’s say you’re a developer using a MacBook Pro powered by macOS but want to build an app for the Windows OS. You can run a Windows virtual machine and program your application instead of buying a new Windows-powered computer.
Citrix Hypervisor lets you run multiple independent virtual machines on a single physical computer. Any software program executed on these virtual machines is separated from the underlying host hardware resources. It works for personal computers and servers.
Citrix Hypervisor is based on the Xen Project hypervisor, with extra features and technical support provided by Citrix. The Xen hypervisor is a type-1 or bare-metal hypervisor, meaning it runs directly on the host machine’s physical hardware. The other type is the type-2 hypervisor, which runs on top of an existing operating system.
Citrix Hypervisor delivers fast and efficient performance as a type-1 hypervisor with direct access to the host hardware. It's also very secure owing to the absence of flaws and vulnerabilities that accompany operating systems. With this software, every virtual machine is isolated from the other, and the isolation helps protect them from cyber threats.
Key features of the Citrix Hypervisor include;
Resource pools enable Citrix users to manage multiple servers/virtual machines and their connected storage as a single entity. Thanks to this feature, you can move and run virtual machines on different Citrix Hypervisor hosts-- create on one server and move to another without interference.
A single pool can contain up to 64 servers running the same version of Citrix Hypervisor software but with different hardware.
If one server suffers a hardware failure, you can restart the failed virtual machines on another server within the same resource pool and have it running exactly as before. You can also configure virtual machines to migrate to another host automatically when their host fails.
Citrix Hypervisor lets users create disk images of virtual machines. A disk image is a file containing all the contents of a specific virtual machine– you can upload that image to another host system to provide you an exact replica of that virtual machine.
Think of a disk image as a backup system for your virtual machine. Thanks to the Open Virtualization Format (OVF), an open-source standard, you can easily import or export virtual machines from one host machine to another– it doesn’t matter what virtualization software you created the VMs on.
This software supports two disk image formats; Virtual Hard Disk (VHD) and Virtual Machine Disk (VMDK).
Citrix Hypervisor lets you recover virtual machines from a hardware failure. It stores your virtual machine’s metadata (structural information about files and folders) in a backup environment. In case of failure, you can restore the metadata to recreate your virtual machine.
By default, Citrix Hypervisor uses a command line interface, meaning you must know specific codes to input to get the software to perform its functions. Using a command line interface is pretty challenging for the average computer user due to the requirement to memorize commands. Fortunately, you can install a Graphical User Interface (GUI) console to operate Citrix Hypervisor with less difficulty.
You can contact Citrix through email, live chat, or telephone to resolve issues. There’s also extensive documentation about Citrix Hypervisor on the official website.
The best alternative to Citrix Hypervisor that we’d recommend is VMware Workstation Pro (opens in new tab). It offers similar features to Citrix Hypervisor for a more affordable price. It’s also easier to use, but the drawback is that it isn’t compatible with the macOS operating system.
Citrix Hypervisor is a tool we’d gladly recommend for enterprises that want to create and manage a cluster of virtual machines. The main drawback is its high price which makes it unsuitable for small businesses with few employees.
We've featured the best virtual machine software.
Sept 21 (Reuters) - Wall Street banks completed the sale of $8.55 billion in loans and bonds backing the leveraged buyout of business software company Citrix Systems Inc (CTXS.O) by accepting a $700 million loss, a person familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
The process emerged as a key test of banks' ability to offload junk-rated debt from their books, a process that is necessary for them to recycle capital and comply with regulations governing their financial health.
While the syndication was completed successfully, it was done at a steep discount to the levels that the banks underwrote the debt. It was also buoyed by one of Citrix's acquirers, hedge fund Elliott Management, helping out by buying $1 billion in bonds, a second source said.
Private equity firms, which rely on junk-rated debt to juice returns in their acquisitions of companies, have witnessed banks retrench in the wake of Citrix and other deals weighing on their balance sheet. Bankers said this was unlikely to change soon, as rising interest rates and market volatility fueled by Russia's war in Ukraine raised the risk of deals they underwrite appearing mispriced just a few weeks later.
Banks led by Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN.S) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc sold a Citrix loan to investors of about $4.55 billion with an annual interest rate of 450 basis points over their benchmark and at a discount of 91 cents on the dollar, people familiar the matter said.
They also sold a $4 billion three-year Citrix bond for 83.6 cents on the dollar, resulting in a higher than expected yield of 10%, the sources added. Reuters had reported last week the loans were meeting strong demand, while the bonds, which were subordinated in Citrix's capital structure, were less popular. read more
Bank of America and Credit Suisse declined to comment. Goldman Sachs and Elliott did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
More debt syndication pain for the banks is on the way. A roughly $2 billion loan backing private equity firm Apollo Global Management Inc's (APO.N) purchase of telecommunication assets from Lumen Technologies is being marketed at a discount of 92 cents on the dollar, while a $1.87 billion bond for the same deal is being sold at a steep 10% yield.
Reporting by Abigail Summerville in New York and Matt Tracy in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Josie Kao
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Hospital and health system CEOs have a lot of issues dominating their thoughts, including questions about workforce challenges in today's economic environment.
To gain more insight into executives' top concerns, Becker's asked hospital and health system CEOs to share the questions they need answered right now. Below are their responses, in listed alphabetical order of the respondents.
John Hennelly. President and CEO of Sonoma (Calif.) Valley Hospital
Question: How will hospitals keep up with rising costs while reimbursement constantly lags far behind?
Why this question is important: 2022 has exasperated an already fragile financial system. For over 20 years I have watched reimbursement fail to keep pace with rising costs. 2022 has seen oversized increases on the expense side with modest advances in reimbursement. Stop gap measures, while helpful, do not address the fundamental disequilibrium. Hospitals are now dependent upon philanthropy for much of our investment in growth. We need change....
Question: When will healthcare entities be competitively reimbursed for much less costly and less invasive preventative care?
Why this question is important: Caregivers got into healthcare to heal and promote health. And yet we are directed, through reimbursement, to focus on the fire and ignore the smoke. Fires certainly must be put out (heart attacks, strokes, etc.), but if we oriented more toward the smoke, obesity, diet, smoking(!), lack of exercise, how many fires could be avoided? The infrastructure to provide acute care can't go away, but the volume (and cost) could change dramatically if reimbursement supported more preventative activities.
Question: Where will I find staff as my workforce ages?
Why this question is important: Labor shortages are only getting worse. Our population is aging. The proportion of the population who consumes the most healthcare, seniors, has grown from 13 percent to 17 percent over the past 20 years. That's a 30 percent increase. How do we find staff for nursing and technical areas as demand grows and the labor pool remains constantly deficient?
Arthur Sampson. Interim President and CEO of Lifespan (Providence, R.I.)
Question: In light of the persistent labor shortage across many industries, what are some alternative models for providing quality care that can be operationalized with existing staff?
Why this question is important: Traditional recruitment and retention incentives have not been enough to fill the staff vacancies that grew exponentially during the COVID pandemic. Substantial hiring and referral bonuses, free on-the-job training programs, tuition remission, loan forgiveness have helped, but many healthcare human resource leaders will tell you that attrition is outpacing hiring. The solution that many hospitals implemented during the pandemic — to pause elective surgeries — is not a long-term sustainable model, nor is keeping hospital beds closed. There is an urgent need for immediate viable alternatives while we rebuild our workforce.
Mark Wallace. President and CEO of Texas Children's Hospital (Houston)
Question: In the midst of the U.S. and global economies teetering on recession, combined with the highest inflation in decades, highly restrictive U.S. monetary policy, ongoing disruption from supply chain challenges, exceptionally low unemployment and a healthcare labor force that is exhausted from the pandemic, how do we further support our incredible workforce, while continuing to provide exceptional, platinum-level patient care to our patients and families with greater operational efficiency than ever before?
Why this question is important: It is clear from our research that 2022 is turning out to be one of the most challenging operating environments for healthcare institutions in years. Margins for healthcare systems across the country are under pressure from rising costs resulting from persistently high inflation, ongoing supply chain disruptions, and a challenging labor market. We expect the macro environment will remain challenging, volatile and uncertain for the foreseeable future. As a result, it is imperative that we swiftly adapt to the current environment. We must continue to invest in our people, while constantly seeking opportunities to enhance operational efficiency as we deliver best in class, high quality care that our patients and their families expect from us. We must think differently and lead differently.
In deciding West Virginia v. EPA last term, the Supreme Court invoked a rarely used concept called the “major questions doctrine.” This holds that when an administrative agency claims authority to issue a far-reaching or unprecedented new rule, it must be able to show that Congress specifically authorized what the agency is proposing. At this time, with this court, we are likely to see many more cases in which this agency-restricting doctrine is invoked.
The underlying policy of the major questions doctrine is as clear as the Constitution itself: Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, Congress must make the laws, not an administrative agency. Administrative agencies cannot use a generally stated authority from Congress, such as the EPA’s authority to address air pollution or climate change, to create rules that the agency cannot show were intended or even contemplated by Congress. If the conservative majority of the court stays with this position — and there is every indication that it will — the result will be a narrowing of the powers of administrative agencies.
The facts of the case provide some guidance for how far agencies can stray from the authority they receive from Congress. Over time, the EPA has been authorized to limit air pollution as well as the release of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases that some scientists believe can create unwanted climate change. However, the EPA used this authority to issue regulations that would completely change the structure of the private power industry.
Under existing EPA rules, electricity-generating power plants must use the “best system of emission reduction” consistent with their means of power production, whether they burn coal or gas. Coal, even under this standard, will always emit more greenhouse gases than natural gas emits per unit of energy. But as long as coal plants use the best technology available, the law says they can continue to operate.
Also — and this is a unique element of the interrelated electric power industry — when one power generator reduces its production, the others can automatically increase theirs.
So in the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” rule, as the Supreme Court’s decision described it, the operator of a coal plant could choose one of two options: either to reduce its own production and sell a credit to others whose production has increased as a result or to “build a new natural gas plant, wind farm, or solar installation, or invest in someone else’s existing facility, and then increase generation there.”
According to the EPA, this change in industry structure, called “generation-shifting,” would reduce greenhouse emissions by reducing the production of existing coal plants. But in effect, it completely changed the coal-fired generating industry, forcing it to reduce its production and invest “outside the fence” in non-coal generating sources. Whether or not this is good climate policy, it was a major change in the way the power industry had previously been regulated. It probably threatened the viability and profitability of generating power from coal.
But did Congress authorize (or would it authorize) such a major change in the way power generation from coal was regulated? This question put the issue front and center. How far can a regulatory agency go, beyond the words Congress used to establish the agency’s authority, before it has begun to make laws instead of merely implementing them? This is one of the most fundamental questions that the Supreme Court has faced in the past and will confront in the future.
As the world and the U.S. economy become increasingly complex, can Congress be expected to anticipate these changes? On the other hand, if we are going to have a system in which administrative agencies (and not Congress) are making all the rules, aren’t we then really governed by a faceless and unelected bureaucracy, instead of the people we elect to represent us?
Political scientists and other observers have noted that, over many years, Congress has been able to avoid tough decisions by sending ambiguous authority to administrative agencies. Then, when constituents complain about the breadth of regulations, members of Congress blame the agencies rather than their own failure to use clear and precise statutory language. Indeed, one of the principal reasons the Supreme Court has probably used the major questions doctrine in this case is to force Congress to authorize rules that would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases if it is serious about the issue.
Finally, one other important element in this case deserves notice. The word Chevron appears nowhere in the court’s decision — only in the dissent. This is significant. In 1984, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council that lower courts should defer to administrative agencies' views about their regulatory authority when those views are “reasonable.” The decision became one of the most cited and important in administrative law and clearly added significant heft to agency powers.
West Virginia v. EPA could have been a classic Chevron case, with the EPA arguing that its decision on the elements of the Clean Power Plan deserved what was called Chevron deference. The fact that Chevron appears nowhere in the majority’s decision (written by Chief Justice John Roberts) suggests that the court will no longer employ the Chevron doctrine — another blow to the administrative state.
Peter J. Wallison is a senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute. His most exact book is Judicial Fortitude: The Last Chance to Rein in the Administrative State (Encounter, 2018).
Washington Examiner Videos
Tags: Opinion, Op-Eds, EPA, Supreme Court, Climate Change, Law
Original Author: Peter Wallison
Original Location: Supreme Court's embrace of 'major questions' could rein in administrative state
The Citrix-Tibco deal passed a shareholder vote in April.
Virtualization and cloud products vendor Citrix and enterprise applications vendor Tibco Software have completed their merger, valued at $16.5 billion, with new leadership calling the combined company “a new global leader in enterprise software.”
The two companies announced the deal’s completion in a statement Friday. Investment firms Vista Equity Partners and Evergreen Coast Capital Corp. – an affiliate of Elliott Investment Management – took Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Citrix off the NASDAQ to complete the deal.
CRN has reached out to the companies for comment.
[RELATED: Citrix Partners: Go-Private Deal Hinges On Restoring ‘Heart Of True Innovation’]
Shareholders will receive $104 cash per share, according to the statement. The Citrix-Tibco deal passed a shareholder vote in April.
Tom Krause, who left Broadcom after the chip giant’s announced acquisition of VMware to become CEO of the combined Citrix and Palo Alto, Calif.-based Tibco, called the combined company “a new global leader in enterprise software” in the statement.
“We are excited to create a new global leader in enterprise software, designed for scale and growth, through the combination of Citrix and TIBCO,” Krause said. “The platform we have built will expand and deepen our relationships with our valued customers and partners, drive the future of mission-critical cloud software solutions and create long-term value for all our stakeholders.”
With the completion of the Citrix-Tibco deal, Krause revealed on LinkedIn that he is now CEO of Cloud Software Group (CSG), the owner of Citrix and Tibco.
A website for CSG said that Citrix and Tibco will remain separate business units as well as their major solution lines, including Citrix’s NetScaler and ShareFile and Tibco’s ibi and Jaspersoft.
The companies will retain their own branding as well, according to CSG.
Hector Lima, Citrix’s executive vice president and chief customer officer, has the title of EVP of field and channel sales with CSG, according to the website. Lima “leads the global sales, channel ecosystem and customer experience organization,” according to CSG.
Among the executives at CSG include Tibco Chief Information Officer Rani Johnson as CIO, Tibco Chief Financial Officer Tom Berquist as CFO.
Citrix Chief Product Officer Sridhar Mullapudi has been named general manager of Citrix. Tibco Chief Operating Officer Matt Quinn has been named general manager of Tibco, according to CSG.
Abhilash Verma, vice president of product management for application delivery and security at Citrix, has been named general manager of NetScaler. And Ali Ahmed, Tibco’s senior vice president of engineering, has been named CSG’s general manager of enterprise applications, according to the company.
Meanwhile, while Citrix and Tibco have joined together, Citrix subsidiary Wrike has formally split from the virtualization and cloud technologies vendor.
In March 2021, Citrix closed on its purchase of Wrike, a collaborative work management platform and Vista portfolio company, for $2.25 billion.
On Friday, Wrike CEO Andrew Filev posted on the company’s website announcing that Wrike has completed its separation from Citrix and has “the financial backing” of Vista and Evergreen.
“We will leverage our newfound position as a private, autonomous company to continue pursuing innovation focused on solving dynamic workplace challenges and meeting the needs of the modern workforce,” Filev said in the post.
He continued: “As Wrike moves forward, our focus remains the same. We have the most intuitive, versatile, and scalable work management platform on the market and a collaborative, driven team dedicated to freeing our customers to focus on their most purposeful work. There’s never been greater demand for a solution like ours and a better time to deliver it.”
In September, the company hired Brian Clark as chief revenue officer, according to his LinkedIn. He came to Wrike after more than three years with customer experience technologies provider InMoment, leaving with the title of executive vice president and chief revenue officer.
Long Path To Private Ownership
Citrix had a long path to returning to life as a private company. Elliott Management previously bought a stake in the company in 2015 and Elliott partner Jesse Cohn joined the board. He left in 2020, according to a Citrix statement from the time.
Citrix reportedly explored sales and spin-off strategies in 2015 and 2017. Citrix partners at the time voiced displeasure to CRN about Elliott’s 2015 presence.
Rumors of Elliott Management seeking ownership of Citrix popped up in the fall of 2021 following a 16 percent drop in Citrix’s share price year and Elliott Management buying a 10 percent stake in Citrix. Rumors of Elliott and Vista working together to take Citrix private first surfaced in December.
At the start of 2022, Citrix partners who spoke to CRN were cautiously optimistic about the deal.
Partners wanted to see Citrix’s actions back up executives’ words that the company was investing in its channel partner program – not to mention, investing in its technology to break out from the crowded market of vendors offering services aimed at remote workforces.
In 2021, even Citrix’s leadership voiced displeasure in Citrix’s go-to-market strategy. CEO David Henshall stepped down in the fall and interim President and CEO Bob Calderoni promised “to shore up our channel programs and put in place the right incentives for our channel partners.”
“The channel is still there. The channel hasn’t gone away,” Calderoni said on an earnings call in November. “They’re not selling somebody else’s products. They’re just focusing on other parts of their business. And like any part of a sales organization, and the channel is part of our sales organization, we want to make it more profitable for them to do business with us.”
Citrix channel chief Bronwyn Hastins left Citrix in May 2021 for Google Cloud, with Mark Palomba – Citrix’s chief operating officer of sales and services – taking over the role.
In April, Hector Lima told CRN about efforts to “decentralize” its partner program, pushing more resources for partners “out to the edge” and making Citrix easier to do business with for partners.
In addition to the partner program changes, Lima said that Palomba would leave the role of channel chief, with Citrix possibly adopting multiple channel chief roles.
Elliott Investment Management is said to have purchased about $1 billion of the junk-bond deal supporting its planned buyout of software company Citrix Systems (NASDAQ:CTXS).
Apollo Global (APO) also purchasde about $500 million of the the $4 billion bond deal, according to traders, who cited a Bloomberg report.
The update comes as banks have struggled in exact month to finance the $15 billion takeout of Citrix (CTXS) by Elliott and Vista Equity partners due to the nature of the financing markets. Several media outlets including Bloomberg earlier Wednesday reported that Wall Street banks are expected to lose about $600 million on debt backing the Citrix deal that they were forced to sell to investors at huge discounts.
The Elliott news also comes after an Apollo executive said a week ago that that he doesn't expect banks to to start financing debt for leveraged buyouts anytime soon. Banks aren't likely to fund large transactions until at least the fourth quarter due to the current economic uncertainty, David Sambur, co-head of private equity at Apollo told Bloomberg TV.
Citrix (CTXS) agreed in January to a $16.5 billion sale to Vista Equity and Elliott Management.
Wall Street banks completed the sale of $8.55 billion in loans and bonds backing the leveraged buyout of business software company Citrix Systems Inc by accepting a $700- million loss, a person familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
The process emerged as a key test of banks’ ability to offload junk-rated debt from their books, a process that is necessary for them to recycle capital and comply with regulations governing their financial health.
While the syndication was completed successfully, it was done at a steep discount to the levels that the banks underwrote the debt. It was also buoyed by one of Citrix’s acquirers, hedge fund Elliott Management, helping out by buying $1 billion in bonds, a second source said.
Private equity firms, which rely on junk-rated debt to juice returns in their acquisitions of companies, have witnessed banks retrench in the wake of Citrix and other deals weighing on their balance sheet. Bankers said this was unlikely to change soon, as rising interest rates and market volatility fueled by Russia’s war in Ukraine raised the risk of deals they underwrite appearing mispriced just a few weeks later.
Banks led by Bank of America Corp, Credit Suisse Group AG and Goldman Sachs Group Inc sold a Citrix loan to investors of about $4.55 billion with an annual interest rate of 450 basis points over their benchmark and at a discount of 91 cents on the dollar, people familiar the matter said.
They also sold a $4 billion three-year Citrix bond for 83.6 cents on the dollar, resulting in a higher than expected yield of 10 percent, the sources added. Reuters had reported last week the loans were meeting strong demand, while the bonds, which were subordinated in Citrix’s capital structure, were less popular.
Bank of America and Credit Suisse declined to comment. Goldman Sachs and Elliott did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
More debt syndication pain for the banks is on the way. A roughly $2 billion loan backing private equity firm Apollo Global Management Inc’s purchase of telecommunication assets from Lumen Technologies is being marketed at a discount of 92 cents on the dollar, while a $1.87 billion bond for the same deal is being sold at a steep 10 percent yield.
Subscribe to INQUIRER PLUS to get access to The Philippine Daily Inquirer & other 70+ titles, share up to 5 gadgets, listen to the news, get as early as 4am & share articles on social media. Call 896 6000.