NIST and the cloudwashing of client-server SaaS
Originally Posted by matt40k
Thank you @matt40k reminding me about security auditing question.
I thought it is obvious why we haven't been providing response to this or specific technical specification of Bromcom Cloud MIS. This is because this thread it is not about product x or company y. From the outset we started this thread to discuss architectural characteristics, behaviour and suitability of client-server MIS @pwainewright calls it antique - we call it more politely legacy software) vs web based MIS. There are number of MIS suppliers and products that fall under these two type of architectures and hence the arguments apply to all.
We have been pleased to be able persuade cloud experts @pwainewright to participate in this thread for 'independent' views and as of today this thread has attracted over 2.5k visits within space of 10 days. I trust it has enlighten many and now we understand why client-server is scalability is severely curtailed by its own characteristics. Hence why it is not economical and advisable to deployment approach. It is not because software has been written badly but because programming tools used in developing client-server applications and executable codes are simply are not 'cloud aware'.
If you haven’t yet visited @pwainewright ’s article – it is worth doing so NIST and the cloudwashing of client-server SaaS
When we started the thread, we did not have in mind to release the Report on our Tests or the related press release - but because they were requested by the forum members we obliged. I do not think it is then to accuse Bromcom making a sales pitch. In this respect we responded to what has been asked by @matt40k, @GREED and @PhilNeal - no more.
What has been sad is that despite you analysis was out by factor of 300, rather than re-visiting and correcting your figures, you suffice to say "I still thing (sic) this is an over estimate". I am not sure how this sits within the premise and viewed by the forum that we agreed to share the Report on the basis of you providing balanced/objective feedback. We need to keep this in mind in similar circumstances in future.
Clearly other topics appear flowing from the most recent postings on this thread and we should branch off so to keep this thread for the purpose it set out.
Therefore probably this will conclude our posting on this thread and thanks to all participating and visiting.