3 ms·

I totally agree a good successor to Heroku is missing. A lot of organizations tried (Google AppEngine, Pivotal Cloud Foundry). I think AppEngine failed because

by sytse 9y ago

I totally agree a good successor to Heroku is missing. A lot of organizations tried (Google AppEngine, Pivotal Cloud Foundry). I think AppEngine failed because the security sandbox was pretty constraining and Pivotal was too expensive for most companies. With Kubernetes you can build the Platform as a Service (PaaS) on a shared Containers as a Service (CaaS) foundation (definitions are in https://github.com/cncf/wg-serverless/tree/master/whitepaper#platform-as-a-service https://github.com/cncf/wg-serverless/tree/master/whitepaper... ) You see multiple organizations trying this, Rancher 2.0 just got released, and we at GitLab just announced a partnership with Google's CaaS to make Auto DevOps more usable. Our goal with Auto DevOps over Heroku is: 1. Open source 2. Run anywhere you want (don't pay extra for compute) 3. Smooth graduation (no need to start from scratch when you need a customization) The biggest piece still missing to replace Heroku is idling of containers, we're hoping that this will get added to Kubernetes https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/29471 https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/29471

k__ 9y ago
I think PaaS isn't really a thing anyone wants. People want IaaS, FaaS or SaaS. If you're smart enough to configure Elastic Beanstalk there isn't much holding you back from using CloudFormation.
- sytse 9y ago
  I think there are a space between IaaS (request VMs) and FaaS (request functions). Current 12-factor apps don't run on FaaS and people rather not spend time setting up CI/CD, security testing, and monitoring for it. BTW We're considering calling it an 'application platform' instead of PaaS, what do people think?
  - mosselman 9y ago
    'Application platform' is a fine name. It gives a feeling of stuff being handled for you. However, 'PaaS' is an already established concept, so when I read 'application platform' I have to learn about what you mean with it. If you just say 'PaaS' then I can start thinking about whether it is good for me right away. I really like where gitlab is going with regards to replacing many external services with integrated services within gitlab. Of course there is the concern of lock-in that is created this way, but I can't really pretend that teams don't get locked into Heroku, TravisCI/CircleCI, AWS, etc.

by sytse 9y ago

k__ 9y ago

I think PaaS isn't really a thing anyone wants. People want IaaS, FaaS or SaaS. If you're smart enough to configure Elastic Beanstalk there isn't much holding you back from using CloudFormation.

sytse 9y ago
I think there are a space between IaaS (request VMs) and FaaS (request functions). Current 12-factor apps don't run on FaaS and people rather not spend time setting up CI/CD, security testing, and monitoring for it. BTW We're considering calling it an 'application platform' instead of PaaS, what do people think?
- mosselman 9y ago
  'Application platform' is a fine name. It gives a feeling of stuff being handled for you. However, 'PaaS' is an already established concept, so when I read 'application platform' I have to learn about what you mean with it. If you just say 'PaaS' then I can start thinking about whether it is good for me right away. I really like where gitlab is going with regards to replacing many external services with integrated services within gitlab. Of course there is the concern of lock-in that is created this way, but I can't really pretend that teams don't get locked into Heroku, TravisCI/CircleCI, AWS, etc.