5 ms·

Kudos to the author for writing this. Serverless is a thing, but Docker definitely isn't it. Nor is AWS lambda. Serverless is client-only code, or even Peer-to

Kudos to the author for writing this. Serverless is a thing, but Docker definitely isn't it. Nor is AWS lambda. Serverless is client-only code, or even Peer-to-Peer between self-coordinating clients. There's a lot of stuff that overlaps in this domain, including microservices, containers, serverless, and if we want to talk about them we should use the right terminology.

jasode 10y ago
>Serverless is client-only code, or even Peer-to-Peer between self-coordinating clients. That's a valid definition but it's just one of many. The Function-as-a-Service has also been called "serverless". Your definition of "serverless" demarcates on where the code runs. The FaaS "serverless"[1] differentiates on what part of the stack you don't have to manage the housekeeping for. With FaaS-serverless, you don't worry about upgrading a particular Linux kernel version if you can decompose a computation into a function that runs on AWS Lambda. So, deploy computation to the cloud without the Linux server embedded inside an image (AMI) -- and it seems natural for a bunch of human beings to call that "serverless". Likewise, the "server" in X Window X11 is the display services to differentiate it from the "client" of a terminal app.[2] All 3 meanings of "server/serverless" can coexist without confusion and it doesn't seem like terminology we have to bikeshed. Personally, the context surrounding serverless always makes it clear what we're talking about. Is anyone truly confused between SQLite being "serverless" and AWS Lambda being "serverless" because they happen to use the same word? As for Ryan Scott Brown's definition of "serverless", is there near universal consensus on his criteria? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_as_a_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_as_a_Service [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Software_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Software_archi...
- jackweirdy 10y ago
  I think the deeper we go into this discussion the more philosophically ambiguous it gets. If I think of the most basic, abstract definition of a server I can, I'd say it's a piece of software at a known location outside of the client process, to which a client goes to transmit a message (and optionally have future messages back and forth in the same "session"). I would say Lambda is not serverless because it depends on software outside of the client process, and I know where it is. X is not serverless because the client process is separate from the server. SQLite is serverless because my process is calling the sqlite library. Torrenting initially has a server (clients need a way to find peers) but very quickly becomes serverless. So I'd say my definition isn't about where it runs, but who is running it and in what context. That's my thoughts on it anyway.
  - jasode 10y ago
    >If I think of the most basic, abstract definition of a server I can, I'd say it's a piece of software at a known location outside of the client process, But you're trying to reduce it down to a perfect singular definition. English doesn't work like that and we'll just end up in contradictions as I will demonstrate further down in my comment. >I would say Lambda is not serverless because it depends on software outside of the client process, and I know where it is. Right... and I acknowledged and agreed that your particular definition of serverless doesn't include Lambda. However, I can also explain why others call deployment without-the-Linux-kernel as "serverless". I guess a different chain of memes might have resulted in alternative terminology such as "Linuxless" computations or "os-free" functions but somehow the word "serverless" gained currency. >SQLite is serverless because my process is calling the sqlite library. So what if my web browser submits a REST API call to a web server that uses SQLite as it's backend? Is SQLite the "db server"? Yes and no. It depends on which definition of "server/serverless". (Machine location vs os in-process/out-of-process) If we insist on 1 definition, we will have contradictions.
    - spriggan3 10y ago
      > If we insist on 1 definition, we will have contradictions. And if we keep on using catch-all buzzwords such as "serverless", it makes words void of any real meaning.
      - neolefty 10y ago
        Serverless has a very definite meaning to me if I'm tired of administering Linux servers.
    - marcosdumay 10y ago
      > If we insist on 1 definition, we will have contradictions. Yeah, the thing with using a clear language is that what you say may be wrong. If we grow out of our clarity prison we'll be able to babble any combination of words, and still not be wrong!
    - eigenframe 10y ago
- jackweirdy 10y ago
  > Your definition of "serverless" demarcates on where the code runs. Additionally, that's an assumption you're making about what I said - I said no server. Nothing about where the server is
- collyw 10y ago
  The only thing serverless about AWS lambda is the pricing model.
Thaxll 10y ago
p2p is not serverless, your computer / client is a server.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Yes, and writing with a pencil is not serverless, because paper is a server. /s

jasode 10y ago

>Serverless is client-only code, or even Peer-to-Peer between self-coordinating clients. That's a valid definition but it's just one of many. The Function-as-a-Service has also been called "serverless". Your definition of "serverless" demarcates on where the code runs. The FaaS "serverless"[1] differentiates on what part of the stack you don't have to manage the housekeeping for. With FaaS-serverless, you don't worry about upgrading a particular Linux kernel version if you can decompose a computation into a function that runs on AWS Lambda. So, deploy computation to the cloud without the Linux server embedded inside an image (AMI) -- and it seems natural for a bunch of human beings to call that "serverless". Likewise, the "server" in X Window X11 is the display services to differentiate it from the "client" of a terminal app.[2] All 3 meanings of "server/serverless" can coexist without confusion and it doesn't seem like terminology we have to bikeshed. Personally, the context surrounding serverless always makes it clear what we're talking about. Is anyone truly confused between SQLite being "serverless" and AWS Lambda being "serverless" because they happen to use the same word? As for Ryan Scott Brown's definition of "serverless", is there near universal consensus on his criteria? [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_as_a_Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_as_a_Service [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Software_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_Window_System#Software_archi...

jackweirdy 10y ago
I think the deeper we go into this discussion the more philosophically ambiguous it gets. If I think of the most basic, abstract definition of a server I can, I'd say it's a piece of software at a known location outside of the client process, to which a client goes to transmit a message (and optionally have future messages back and forth in the same "session"). I would say Lambda is not serverless because it depends on software outside of the client process, and I know where it is. X is not serverless because the client process is separate from the server. SQLite is serverless because my process is calling the sqlite library. Torrenting initially has a server (clients need a way to find peers) but very quickly becomes serverless. So I'd say my definition isn't about where it runs, but who is running it and in what context. That's my thoughts on it anyway.
- jasode 10y ago
  >If I think of the most basic, abstract definition of a server I can, I'd say it's a piece of software at a known location outside of the client process, But you're trying to reduce it down to a perfect singular definition. English doesn't work like that and we'll just end up in contradictions as I will demonstrate further down in my comment. >I would say Lambda is not serverless because it depends on software outside of the client process, and I know where it is. Right... and I acknowledged and agreed that your particular definition of serverless doesn't include Lambda. However, I can also explain why others call deployment without-the-Linux-kernel as "serverless". I guess a different chain of memes might have resulted in alternative terminology such as "Linuxless" computations or "os-free" functions but somehow the word "serverless" gained currency. >SQLite is serverless because my process is calling the sqlite library. So what if my web browser submits a REST API call to a web server that uses SQLite as it's backend? Is SQLite the "db server"? Yes and no. It depends on which definition of "server/serverless". (Machine location vs os in-process/out-of-process) If we insist on 1 definition, we will have contradictions.
  - spriggan3 10y ago
    > If we insist on 1 definition, we will have contradictions. And if we keep on using catch-all buzzwords such as "serverless", it makes words void of any real meaning.
    - neolefty 10y ago
      Serverless has a very definite meaning to me if I'm tired of administering Linux servers.
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    > If we insist on 1 definition, we will have contradictions. Yeah, the thing with using a clear language is that what you say may be wrong. If we grow out of our clarity prison we'll be able to babble any combination of words, and still not be wrong!
  - eigenframe 10y ago
jackweirdy 10y ago
> Your definition of "serverless" demarcates on where the code runs. Additionally, that's an assumption you're making about what I said - I said no server. Nothing about where the server is
collyw 10y ago
The only thing serverless about AWS lambda is the pricing model.

Thaxll 10y ago

p2p is not serverless, your computer / client is a server.

jessaustin 10y ago
Yes, and writing with a pencil is not serverless, because paper is a server. /s