Daily Archives: April 30, 2009

Simon Wardley responds to my “Cloud Relationship Model” article

Simon Wardley, Software Services Manager at Canonical UK and noted Cloud Computing expert and public speaker, responds to my article “Cloud Relationship Model“, with specific mention of my paraphrasing of a talk I saw him give; and thereby explains the history behind the “*aaS” double entendre.

Seriously though, the number of heads on the “*aaS” Hydra continues to grow, and Simon’s comment soon focuses upon the genuine need for a stable and standardised taxonomy, something I agree with wholeheartedly, along with a little bit of temperance and cool-headedness when it comes to thinking up and announcing more “*aaS” classifications…

Comment

Alas I cannot claim that joke to be my own.

Back in early 2007 when I gave a talk at ETECH, I described the changes in the industry as a continued shift of the computing stack from a product to a service based economy.

At that time I often categorised the computing stack into three layers – software, software platform and hardware (back from 2006). Whilst I had made comments that the software layer was really about applications and therefore SaaS should have had a more unfortunate acronym, this was not my true crime nor the origin of the joke.

The problem was that whilst SaaS and HaaS had been in common usage, the mid layer was known as SaaS Platform. This neither fitted neatly into the naming convention nor was it correct, as this layer of the stack contained many framework elements. So I started to describe this as the framework layer and FaaS seemed to be the obvious choice.

Hence at OSCON in Jul’07 I described the stack as a trio of SaaS, FaaS and HaaS.

Robert Lefkowitz (in a later talk at OSCON’07) warned us that this trio of “oh so wrong” nomenclature would lead to a whole lot of “aaS” and hence the joke was born.

Well Robert, as always, was spot on. In the last few years we’ve seen a plethora of different “aaS” terms (at last count it was about 16, including multiple versions of DaaS). The last few years has seen a constant exercise in revisionism.

Whilst the distinction between the layers of the computing stack is valid and meaningful, especially in context of the shift from products to services, what is not meaningful is the constant creation and recreation of terms.

Fortunately we now seem to be settling down to a three layer stack of application, platform and infrastructure – though I’m sure there is going to be more arguments.

This is why I argue the one thing we need in cloud computing today is a stable taxonomy.

Good post by the way.

Simon W

Sun Microsystems, Dynamic Infrastructure and the Register

Sun’s Dynamic Infrastructure is a Suite of Services, enabled by technology, and is just one of the ways that we can help you move toward a virtualized datacenter platform that fully exploits our expertise in IT architecture and process automation, enabling agility through the extremely flexible, efficient and secure deployment of the IT infrastructure.

It’s being going for at least three or four years, possibly even longer, and is led by Jason Caroline, who also spent time looking after Sun’s “Solution Delivery Network” (SDN, or what Scott used to call “a great big freking web tone switch”), and is currently involved in some of the work around Sun’s Cloud Computing offerings. You can learn a whole lot more about Sun’s Dynamic Infrastructure initiative here: https://www.sun.com/service/dynamicinfrastructure/

You’d probably be unsurprised to find that our Datacentre Virtualisation, Consolidation and Efficiency practice is one of our most repetitively successful lines of business in the UK and Ireland; and is enabled by the great delivery team that have assembled over the years in the UK Sun Services organisation (I even worked with them myself more than a few times whilst I was part of Sun’s Professional Services organisation).

Over the last couple of days I’ve been getting more than a little bored by all the articles on the Register going on about IBM’s Dynamic Infrastructure initiative, especially as if you’d imagine from the articles no-one had ever combined the words “Dynamic” and “Infrastructure” before and because of the relative closeness of some of the messaging (and yes, you could argue the initiatives are totally different but my gripes are to do with the above).

You may think I’m going over the top here, but really, six articles in the last two days, each mentioning “Dynamic Infrastructure”, is going a bit far. I couldn’t resist leaving the following comment on the article most focused upon the initiative in the hope that that leaves the aforementioned a little more balanced…

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/29/ibm_storage_apr09/comments/

Don’t want to rain on your parade but…

…Sun have been talking about ‘Dynamic Infrastructure’ for a few years now, in a similar light, you’d almost imagine someone might have read their press releases and material too.

More here: https://www.sun.com/service/dynamicinfrastructure/