5 ms·

Isn't "serverless" just a fancy way of saying "someone else's containers"?

tluyben2 9y ago
Yeah, the whole serverless makes no sense. There is a server running probably in a container handling your code. Who came up with this weird name?
- CharlesW 9y ago
  > Who came up with this weird name? Amazon popularized it, but Ken Fromm's use is the earliest mention I've been able to find (from 2012): http://readwrite.com/2012/10/15/why-the-future-of-software-and-apps-is-serverless/ http://readwrite.com/2012/10/15/why-the-future-of-software-a...
  - usaar333 9y ago
    We were using the term serverless at PiCloud since 2010. Source: memory and https://www.techcrunch.com/2010/07/19/picloud-launches-serverless-computing-platform-to-the-public https://www.techcrunch.com/2010/07/19/picloud-launches-serve...
    - tluyben2 9y ago
      I was discussing a project with a potential client ( I think they were called Threeships ) who used ActiveX and a lot of investment to create full p2p software and indeed serverless. Horrible tech that time but yes, that could be considered serverless; if there is a server (as in one physical or virtual machine handling multiple client software execution requests) it is not serverless. It is quite possible to let every client run their own request theoretically so you can make serverless but amazon is not.
CharlesW 9y ago
> Isn't "serverless" just a fancy way of saying "someone else's containers"? No, "serverless" just means that there are no servers (or VMs, or containers) to be directly managed by the developer.
- tyrankh 9y ago
  I agree with you about that definition, but just to be clear the author disambiguates in this article and describes serverless to mean FaaS in the context of the article.
- ams6110 9y ago
  In that sense, any 3rd party API, e.g. Stripe, or whatever, is "serverless" from the standpoint of the developer using it, but I doubt many would think of it that way.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    You can't upload your own code to the stripe API. Someone else manages your containers and you manage the code.
  - moduspwnens14 9y ago
    That may change. S3, for example, is a building block for applications and abstracts away servers completely from the developer. As do the following: * SQS * SNS * DynamoDB * Step Functions * Lambda * API Gateway * CloudWatch Logs * Cognito * DynamoDB You can build entire applications with the services above and never have to bother managing instances. It's not just about running code.
- acdha 9y ago
  … which means that you have much less control and when something goes wrong, you can't fix it. To be clear, I enjoy having this as a tool available but not every problem is the same and not every organization is the same.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wmf 9y ago
No, because serverless has much more restrictive rules than containers.
dominotw 9y ago
This discussion about the name comes up in every single thread about serverless See prev discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406822

Yeah, the whole serverless makes no sense. There is a server running probably in a container handling your code. Who came up with this weird name?

CharlesW 9y ago
> Who came up with this weird name? Amazon popularized it, but Ken Fromm's use is the earliest mention I've been able to find (from 2012): http://readwrite.com/2012/10/15/why-the-future-of-software-and-apps-is-serverless/ http://readwrite.com/2012/10/15/why-the-future-of-software-a...
- usaar333 9y ago
  We were using the term serverless at PiCloud since 2010. Source: memory and https://www.techcrunch.com/2010/07/19/picloud-launches-serverless-computing-platform-to-the-public https://www.techcrunch.com/2010/07/19/picloud-launches-serve...
  - tluyben2 9y ago
    I was discussing a project with a potential client ( I think they were called Threeships ) who used ActiveX and a lot of investment to create full p2p software and indeed serverless. Horrible tech that time but yes, that could be considered serverless; if there is a server (as in one physical or virtual machine handling multiple client software execution requests) it is not serverless. It is quite possible to let every client run their own request theoretically so you can make serverless but amazon is not.

CharlesW 9y ago

> Isn't "serverless" just a fancy way of saying "someone else's containers"? No, "serverless" just means that there are no servers (or VMs, or containers) to be directly managed by the developer.

tyrankh 9y ago
I agree with you about that definition, but just to be clear the author disambiguates in this article and describes serverless to mean FaaS in the context of the article.
ams6110 9y ago
In that sense, any 3rd party API, e.g. Stripe, or whatever, is "serverless" from the standpoint of the developer using it, but I doubt many would think of it that way.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  You can't upload your own code to the stripe API. Someone else manages your containers and you manage the code.
- moduspwnens14 9y ago
  That may change. S3, for example, is a building block for applications and abstracts away servers completely from the developer. As do the following: * SQS * SNS * DynamoDB * Step Functions * Lambda * API Gateway * CloudWatch Logs * Cognito * DynamoDB You can build entire applications with the services above and never have to bother managing instances. It's not just about running code.
acdha 9y ago
… which means that you have much less control and when something goes wrong, you can't fix it. To be clear, I enjoy having this as a tool available but not every problem is the same and not every organization is the same.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

wmf 9y ago

No, because serverless has much more restrictive rules than containers.

dominotw 9y ago

This discussion about the name comes up in every single thread about serverless See prev discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406822 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16406822