5 ms·

I do not agree with term serverless. Amazon Lambda is a service, therefore there is a server involved. It's like saying deathless meat, because someone else ki

I do not agree with term serverless. Amazon Lambda is a service, therefore there is a server involved. It's like saying deathless meat, because someone else killed the animal you are consuming.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kpil 10y ago
Exactly. The cloud is just someone else's computer. It's a genuine business case, as running a lean and secure server farm is no child's play, but it's also oversold so much that my eyes hurts. Actual serverless computing would be implemented as p2p. Possibly interesting in a typical EvilCorpesque large corporation. Besides, Seti@home (Boinc) have been doing serverless computing for almost 20 years and it wasn't the first implementations.
- inopinatus 10y ago
  Achieving real-world service objectives via cloud infrastructure requires a different approach to architecture, data management, process design, service ownership, availability, cost management, the list goes on. Some uses of cloud services are superficially comparable to old-school bureau computing. But to say it is "just someone else's computer" is trite, grossly misleading and downright bad advice, because treating it as such will get you burned.
  - kpil 10y ago
    I think we are on the same page here. How about - it's nothing more to it than someone else computer. With all the risks and benefits. If you have the right workload, it is super awesome. If you have a reasonably matching workload and you can spend spend time on all the things you counted, it's also probably good but it's far from a clear-cut certainty. If you have heap of legacy systems you will basically need to rewrite a lot it to make it work, and then it might not be worth it at all. This is the case that is oversold.
- ec109685 10y ago
  P2P would be using peer computers as servers, so it wouldn't be serverless by your definition.
  - kpil 10y ago
    That would be computerless computing - seems to a harder problem to solve... P2P was about using non-dedicated computers. It's like the antithesis of the currently marked cloud solutions isn't it?
partycoder 10y ago
Note: not that it is less convenient. Not saying that. Just going against the terminology. If anything, this model can provide a more straightforward costing model. e.g: x transactions = x lambda calls = x cost Also saves you the work of setting up an autoscaling infrastructure.
aikah 10y ago
Fight the good fight, you're not the only one standing up against this ridiculous moniker. Never back down. Keep calling out the bullshit every time and everywhere this term is promoted. People ask "what's the big deal?" well the big deal is ,calling a service "serverless" is both a lie and misleading for marketing purposes.
- partycoder 10y ago
  Like when people say that integration tests are unit tests. That gets me going every single time (a unit test is a test on a unit of code, e.g: a function or method). If you have seen "the interview", this is like when the guy says "on the line", and gets corrected each time.
- jamesmcintyre 10y ago
  The name "serverless" will and is likely doing everything I'm sure it was intended to do... provoke curiosity, signal "this is different than just another PaaS", sound cool and maybe polarize or incite those who get angered over technically less-than-accurate names for frameworks. I'm both surprised and not surprised that HN comments have been so relentlessly focused on this seemingly trivial matter. I can understand that the engineer/scientific mindset would likely take issue with this name but I think the "I'm a human that's grown up in an age of omnipresent marketing-fu." part of you needs to realize that all ideas survive and die on the act of finding a place in your brain- a hook so that next time you discuss with someone their need to scale infinitely/instantly without provisioning containers or an IoT device that only needs logic run in the cloud every 5mins you'll be more likely to remember and suggest: "Well there is this framework with a terribly misleading and inaccurate name that may help you called serverless."
- edblarney 10y ago
  It's not a lie, and it's not misleading. The concept of 'server' loses all meaning in this given architecture. You create 'Lambdas' - units of functionality - and they do that they are supposed to do entirely independent of the underlying architecture. In fact, using the concept of 'server' in a Lambda situation probably obfuscates the situation and adds unnecessary complexity. A 'server' is an implementation detail that concerns only those providing the container/Lambda services. As long as the implementation lives up to the SLA (i.e. performance, uptime, security, price, redundancy) that you have agreed to - then it doesn't matter how it works.
yumaikas 10y ago
I think a better term would be FAAS (Functions as a service), since that's what it is. Lambda looks kinda neat as far as tech goes however.
- partycoder 10y ago
  Yes, I also think that's a much more accurate term that better represents the concept.
  - mypalmike 10y ago
    Great. We now know what color to paint the bike shed. Hoorah, progress!
    - partycoder 10y ago
      Yep, that's how progress is made, one step at a time. As seen in: human history, evolution, etc.
- edblarney 10y ago
  The term 'Lambda' has a basis in Computer Science as a type of 'anonymous function' - in which case the name is reasonably well suited. 'Serverless Computing' as a term to describe the paradigm I think is very neutral, descriptive and apt. It's even a little bit boring but it does the job.
  - Can_Not 10y ago
    How is it apt and descriptive, and also not blatently wrong and misleading, if the name explicitly suggests that servers are executing code "without a server"?
    - edblarney 10y ago
      From the customers perspective -> there is no server. The primary difference between and Lambda architecture and a 'serverless architecture' is that the app-maker does not spend any effort, though, or concern in managing servers. That there may or may not be servers under the hood is irrelevant.
mypalmike 10y ago
With AWS API gateway + lambda + dynamodb, I maintain exactly zero servers. Zero physical servers. Zero server OSes. Zero sysadmin. It's perfectly reasonable IMO for that to be called "serverless".
- partycoder 10y ago
  With my supermarket, each time I buy a chicken I maintain zero farms. Zero physical farms. Zero farmers. It's perfectly reasonable IMO for that to be called "farmless chickens".
  - mypalmike 10y ago
    It's just a term. Don't worry about it.
    - partycoder 10y ago
      Don't worry about roman numbers! It's just a representation. Don't worry about them. Just keep doing your math in roman numbers. It's fine. It bothers me that some people don't like my roman numbers. They work! Look!! I + I = II MMMCMXCIX - CXXIII = MMMDCCCLXXVI There's absolutely no way of making this better through representation! Anyone who says otherwise is a bike shedder! In fact, also don't worry about words either. Instead of serverless, let's call them catgiraffetablechaircthulhu. It doesn't matter!
      - raarts 10y ago
        You're being downvoted but I feel your pain.
        partycoder 10y ago
        I have over 1000 HN karma, I have some karma to spare.
- partycoder 10y ago

I do not agree with term serverless. Amazon Lambda is a service, therefore there is a server involved. It's like saying deathless meat, because someone else killed the animal you are consuming.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kpil 10y ago

Exactly. The cloud is just someone else's computer. It's a genuine business case, as running a lean and secure server farm is no child's play, but it's also oversold so much that my eyes hurts. Actual serverless computing would be implemented as p2p. Possibly interesting in a typical EvilCorpesque large corporation. Besides, Seti@home (Boinc) have been doing serverless computing for almost 20 years and it wasn't the first implementations.

inopinatus 10y ago
Achieving real-world service objectives via cloud infrastructure requires a different approach to architecture, data management, process design, service ownership, availability, cost management, the list goes on. Some uses of cloud services are superficially comparable to old-school bureau computing. But to say it is "just someone else's computer" is trite, grossly misleading and downright bad advice, because treating it as such will get you burned.
- kpil 10y ago
  I think we are on the same page here. How about - it's nothing more to it than someone else computer. With all the risks and benefits. If you have the right workload, it is super awesome. If you have a reasonably matching workload and you can spend spend time on all the things you counted, it's also probably good but it's far from a clear-cut certainty. If you have heap of legacy systems you will basically need to rewrite a lot it to make it work, and then it might not be worth it at all. This is the case that is oversold.
ec109685 10y ago
P2P would be using peer computers as servers, so it wouldn't be serverless by your definition.
- kpil 10y ago
  That would be computerless computing - seems to a harder problem to solve... P2P was about using non-dedicated computers. It's like the antithesis of the currently marked cloud solutions isn't it?

partycoder 10y ago

Note: not that it is less convenient. Not saying that. Just going against the terminology. If anything, this model can provide a more straightforward costing model. e.g: x transactions = x lambda calls = x cost Also saves you the work of setting up an autoscaling infrastructure.

aikah 10y ago

Fight the good fight, you're not the only one standing up against this ridiculous moniker. Never back down. Keep calling out the bullshit every time and everywhere this term is promoted. People ask "what's the big deal?" well the big deal is ,calling a service "serverless" is both a lie and misleading for marketing purposes.

partycoder 10y ago
Like when people say that integration tests are unit tests. That gets me going every single time (a unit test is a test on a unit of code, e.g: a function or method). If you have seen "the interview", this is like when the guy says "on the line", and gets corrected each time.
jamesmcintyre 10y ago
The name "serverless" will and is likely doing everything I'm sure it was intended to do... provoke curiosity, signal "this is different than just another PaaS", sound cool and maybe polarize or incite those who get angered over technically less-than-accurate names for frameworks. I'm both surprised and not surprised that HN comments have been so relentlessly focused on this seemingly trivial matter. I can understand that the engineer/scientific mindset would likely take issue with this name but I think the "I'm a human that's grown up in an age of omnipresent marketing-fu." part of you needs to realize that all ideas survive and die on the act of finding a place in your brain- a hook so that next time you discuss with someone their need to scale infinitely/instantly without provisioning containers or an IoT device that only needs logic run in the cloud every 5mins you'll be more likely to remember and suggest: "Well there is this framework with a terribly misleading and inaccurate name that may help you called serverless."
edblarney 10y ago
It's not a lie, and it's not misleading. The concept of 'server' loses all meaning in this given architecture. You create 'Lambdas' - units of functionality - and they do that they are supposed to do entirely independent of the underlying architecture. In fact, using the concept of 'server' in a Lambda situation probably obfuscates the situation and adds unnecessary complexity. A 'server' is an implementation detail that concerns only those providing the container/Lambda services. As long as the implementation lives up to the SLA (i.e. performance, uptime, security, price, redundancy) that you have agreed to - then it doesn't matter how it works.

yumaikas 10y ago

I think a better term would be FAAS (Functions as a service), since that's what it is. Lambda looks kinda neat as far as tech goes however.

partycoder 10y ago
Yes, I also think that's a much more accurate term that better represents the concept.
- mypalmike 10y ago
  Great. We now know what color to paint the bike shed. Hoorah, progress!
  - partycoder 10y ago
    Yep, that's how progress is made, one step at a time. As seen in: human history, evolution, etc.
edblarney 10y ago
The term 'Lambda' has a basis in Computer Science as a type of 'anonymous function' - in which case the name is reasonably well suited. 'Serverless Computing' as a term to describe the paradigm I think is very neutral, descriptive and apt. It's even a little bit boring but it does the job.
- Can_Not 10y ago
  How is it apt and descriptive, and also not blatently wrong and misleading, if the name explicitly suggests that servers are executing code "without a server"?
  - edblarney 10y ago
    From the customers perspective -> there is no server. The primary difference between and Lambda architecture and a 'serverless architecture' is that the app-maker does not spend any effort, though, or concern in managing servers. That there may or may not be servers under the hood is irrelevant.

mypalmike 10y ago

With AWS API gateway + lambda + dynamodb, I maintain exactly zero servers. Zero physical servers. Zero server OSes. Zero sysadmin. It's perfectly reasonable IMO for that to be called "serverless".

partycoder 10y ago
With my supermarket, each time I buy a chicken I maintain zero farms. Zero physical farms. Zero farmers. It's perfectly reasonable IMO for that to be called "farmless chickens".
- mypalmike 10y ago
  It's just a term. Don't worry about it.
  - partycoder 10y ago
    Don't worry about roman numbers! It's just a representation. Don't worry about them. Just keep doing your math in roman numbers. It's fine. It bothers me that some people don't like my roman numbers. They work! Look!! I + I = II MMMCMXCIX - CXXIII = MMMDCCCLXXVI There's absolutely no way of making this better through representation! Anyone who says otherwise is a bike shedder! In fact, also don't worry about words either. Instead of serverless, let's call them catgiraffetablechaircthulhu. It doesn't matter!
    - raarts 10y ago
      You're being downvoted but I feel your pain.
      - partycoder 10y ago
        I have over 1000 HN karma, I have some karma to spare.
partycoder 10y ago