So Sam, I think we agree.
:) KISS aaS goodbye perhaps.
If we could kiss goodbye to the language complexity which provides no benefit, then that would be good.
AaaS, FaaS and HaaS were never going to fly :)
This is why we had SaaS / FaaS and HaaS (we avoided the AaaS acronym). Unfortunately by mid-end 2007 this simple model of three layers had degenerated into about 15 "aaS"es, mainly due to the appearance of Jedi "thought leaders". Now, after almost two years we're back to a simple three layer model - Application / Platform / Infrastructure. Same concepts, just different names. It wouldn't surprise me with all the interest, that we get another round of "aaS" wars. I'd be very grateful if everyone could avoid changing names or layers or imposing various dodgy geometries.
Application fits with the OSI stack
Yes just no-one liked the acronym "AaaS"
"Application Service Provider"
ASP is no different from SaaS - however, that's another discussion and not for this forum.
If we can find something which is generally acceptable (and get people to accept it) then our users are going to be less confused/scared about adopting cloud computing.
Agreed. This is why I argued that the one good thing the CCIF could do is come up with a standard taxonomy - so far, it still hasn't :-(
That mostly works for me,
That's good, but we need to encourage everyone to stick to the same terminology and not go about creating new stuff.
The fabric vs instance argument is bogus
Agreed, so let's keep it simple. Simon Wardley Software Services Manager, Canonical Ltd. TEL: +44 (0)207 630 2451 MOB : +44 (0)7972 911 449 TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com/swardley/