Back in early 2006/7 the transition of I.T. activities from a product to service world was often described using three distinct layers - software, framework and hardware. These layers had specific acronyms :-
- SaaS (Software as a Service)
- FaaS (Framework as a Service)
- HaaS (Hardware as a Service).
The terms separated the boundary between what a user was concerned with and what the provider was concerned with.
In the case of HaaS, the provider was concerned with hardware provision (as virtual machines) and the user was concerned with what was built on that hardware (the operating system, any installed framework components such as databases, messaging systems and all code & data).
In the case of FaaS, the provider was concerned with the framework provided (and all the underlying subsystems such as the operating system, the hardware etc) whilst the user was concerned with what they developed in that framework.
I summarised these concepts and the overall stack in a much later blog post during 2007, "The SEP Boundary and more rough thoughts"
Of course, the plethora of 'aaS' terms was foolish especially since the industry had quickly embarked on what can only be described as the 'aaS' wars, a constant renaming of everything. Robert Lefkowitz ( in Jul'07) warned that this was going to lead to a whole lot of aaS. He was right.
Today, those three central layers of the stack have settled on software (though this often yo-yo's to application and back again), platform and infrastructure. However, this seems to have created its own problem.
Platform is being used at all layers of the stack, so we hear of cloud platforms for building IaaS and many other mangled uses of the concepts. The term infrastructure itself has many different meanings. Several SaaS offerings (despite many calling this layer applications, no-one wants to use the acronym AaaS) are described as core infrastructure and of course everything is built with software.
That which is, and still remains very simple, has become fraught with confusion. Life seemed so much simpler back in 2007.
This why, I argued that the CCIF needed to focus on a common taxonomy because we desperately need to talk about the same thing. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm more than aware of the pitfalls of a mechanistic definition of cloud and its inability to impart a wider understanding of the change that is occurring but confusion is a much greater foe.
So, I strongly urge you to adopt the NIST definition for everyday practical use.