5 ms·

It's called serverless because, for all intents and purposes, you don't know or control: * how many real or virtual servers are running your code. * how the s

It's called serverless because, for all intents and purposes, you don't know or control: * how many real or virtual servers are running your code. * how the servers were provisioned or setup. * how to access the servers (either via SSH or programmatically), either than through predefined APIs. * what happens when the servers break. * what causes the servers to disappear. * etc. The "server" concept has been abstracted out of the equation and you're no longer required to think in terms of servers. (there is one exception: RAM usage is still something you need to predict for AWS Lambda.) Instead, you're thinking in terms of limitations and usage of the service. With the above said, serverless has a bit of journey to make. The toolchain is growing and the workflow of local development, testing and deployment is still a work in progress. I feel like it's a great time to jump in because there is a lot of exciting work to do and a good foundation to build on top of.

virtualized 9y ago
These were already the promises of "the Cloud" until everyone started calling their Raspberry Pis at home a "cloud". Now the same thing has got another stupid name: Serverless. I wonder what the same stuff will be called two years from now.
- collyw 9y ago
  It was "web based" before that.
- melvinram 9y ago
  Yes, services (such as AWS S3) that could be considered serverless have existed for some time now. What has changed is that the suite of services now exist to fully enable an application to be (almost) completely serverless. Similar to micro-services, people will overuse the word and it will seem like a fad. IMO, it's more than a fad. Once the toolchain is mature, it will become the default way of building applications.
  - ShabbosGoy 9y ago
    S3 is not serverless. Just because the implementation details (i.e. how servers are provisioned) are obscured from the end user doesn't make serverless. Web 3.0 is truly serverless because your application lives on a decentralized p2p cloud. Ethereum/Swarm(or IPFS)/Whisper is an example of a serverless p2p stack. You may as well call the service they're selling "managed", because that's what it is.
    - melvinram 9y ago
      That's not how the term serverless is being used most places. See first comment I made. It's not being without server. It's about not thinking about the server.
      - TuringTest 9y ago
        That doesn't make the name any less stupid. It's exactly like calling automatic cars "gearless" because you don't need to manually change gears.
etatoby 9y ago
We still run and manage our servers and save a metric ton of money wrt. "cloud" offerings. When "cloud" or "serverless" will be cheaper than managing your own dedicated servers, then it will actually be useful. Until then, it's just marketing.
- melvinram 9y ago
  Both "cloud" and "serverless" are cheaper if capacity needs are opaque (high growth or unpredictable swings.) If you have predictable capacity needs, I agree that dedicated servers are a better value.
- IanCal 9y ago
  It already is for some of the things I'm doing. I have a lot of data in s3 and process it with lambda, meaning I can run a bunch of things I want very quickly by starting 100+ concurrent processes with virtually no management time from me, and it's cheap.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
  In my experience a dedicated server will be cheaper most of the time. I'm using Hetzner for most of my customers (small & medium-size companies) and for several services offered by Amazon a dedicated solution is just cheaper. I always calculate the prices beforehand for several scenarios and self hosting scenarios are almost invariably cheaper (storage, computing etc.). This does NOT mean it's better. Hetzner's servers are in Europe, they're not infallible (but usually they replace the hardware within 30 minutes or so), you need more time for the initial setup than with AWS, and obviously you can't scale them up in the same way. However, they're cheaper.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Marginally cheaper? In the statistical sense - each one is physically cheaper. But if you count managing them yourself, backing them up, fixing them when they break? Count the room they take in your house/office? If you have enough, count the salary of the person hired to install/manage them as you expand?
mysterydip 9y ago
If the goal is to have a black box that we just send apps to and they just work, I propose a new buzzword: "black cloud".

virtualized 9y ago

These were already the promises of "the Cloud" until everyone started calling their Raspberry Pis at home a "cloud". Now the same thing has got another stupid name: Serverless. I wonder what the same stuff will be called two years from now.

collyw 9y ago
It was "web based" before that.
melvinram 9y ago
Yes, services (such as AWS S3) that could be considered serverless have existed for some time now. What has changed is that the suite of services now exist to fully enable an application to be (almost) completely serverless. Similar to micro-services, people will overuse the word and it will seem like a fad. IMO, it's more than a fad. Once the toolchain is mature, it will become the default way of building applications.
- ShabbosGoy 9y ago
  S3 is not serverless. Just because the implementation details (i.e. how servers are provisioned) are obscured from the end user doesn't make serverless. Web 3.0 is truly serverless because your application lives on a decentralized p2p cloud. Ethereum/Swarm(or IPFS)/Whisper is an example of a serverless p2p stack. You may as well call the service they're selling "managed", because that's what it is.
  - melvinram 9y ago
    That's not how the term serverless is being used most places. See first comment I made. It's not being without server. It's about not thinking about the server.
    - TuringTest 9y ago
      That doesn't make the name any less stupid. It's exactly like calling automatic cars "gearless" because you don't need to manually change gears.

etatoby 9y ago

We still run and manage our servers and save a metric ton of money wrt. "cloud" offerings. When "cloud" or "serverless" will be cheaper than managing your own dedicated servers, then it will actually be useful. Until then, it's just marketing.

melvinram 9y ago
Both "cloud" and "serverless" are cheaper if capacity needs are opaque (high growth or unpredictable swings.) If you have predictable capacity needs, I agree that dedicated servers are a better value.
IanCal 9y ago
It already is for some of the things I'm doing. I have a lot of data in s3 and process it with lambda, meaning I can run a bunch of things I want very quickly by starting 100+ concurrent processes with virtually no management time from me, and it's cheap.
dvfjsdhgfv 9y ago
In my experience a dedicated server will be cheaper most of the time. I'm using Hetzner for most of my customers (small & medium-size companies) and for several services offered by Amazon a dedicated solution is just cheaper. I always calculate the prices beforehand for several scenarios and self hosting scenarios are almost invariably cheaper (storage, computing etc.). This does NOT mean it's better. Hetzner's servers are in Europe, they're not infallible (but usually they replace the hardware within 30 minutes or so), you need more time for the initial setup than with AWS, and obviously you can't scale them up in the same way. However, they're cheaper.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Marginally cheaper? In the statistical sense - each one is physically cheaper. But if you count managing them yourself, backing them up, fixing them when they break? Count the room they take in your house/office? If you have enough, count the salary of the person hired to install/manage them as you expand?

mysterydip 9y ago

If the goal is to have a black box that we just send apps to and they just work, I propose a new buzzword: "black cloud".