4 ms·
Every technology has some degree of lock-in. Serverless has tradeoffs like anything else. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the costs? I recently did a
by forrestbrazeal 9y ago
Every technology has some degree of lock-in. Serverless has tradeoffs like anything else. The question is, do the benefits outweigh the costs? I recently did a writeup on this that helped me work through my own thoughts on the issue: https://www.trek10.com/blog/think-faas-podcast-talkin-lock-in/ https://www.trek10.com/blog/think-faas-podcast-talkin-lock-i...
- moondev 9y agoHow does Kubernetes have lock-in? You can run it on any cloud or baremetal.
- forrestbrazeal 9y agoKubernetes is the lock-in at that point. You're dependent on that project being maintained, etc. And yes, I realize that by that definition, any third-party software has lock-in. That's my whole point.
- mromanuk 9y agoThose are different levels of lock-in. Vendor lock-in is, in my opinion, worst than software lock-in. Kubernetes is also, open source. Edit: grammar
- OnlyRepliesToBS 9y agoWhat a snakeoil pitch. No, this is a layer of vendor lockin by the function. Foolish path led by marketers and liars. Serverless ain't.
- robbyt 9y ago"lock-in" potential should be measured in how difficult it is to escape a platform/system/framework. E.g., if I become unhappy with k8s on Google Cloud, it's easy to migrate to aws. If I become unhappy with k8s, it's easy to migrate to Mesos. If I become unhappy with Linux, it's easy to migrate to FreeBSD. If I'm unhappy with Lambda, it's easy to migrate to cloud functions, or a self-hosted FaaS. Some systems require major rework, or are just otherwise impossible to migrate off (probably by design). Those are the systems to be careful when adapting. Evaluate the "exit friction", build something useful, and stop worrying.