6 ms·

I don't understand the knee-jerk opposition people have to serverless architectures It’s the name. It infuriates people because obviously there still really ar

by gaius 8y ago

I don't understand the knee-jerk opposition people have to serverless architectures It’s the name. It infuriates people because obviously there still really are servers. But I think of it like WiFi - there still are wires, you just don’t see them.

laumars 8y ago
Except there literally isn't any wires in WiFi. Unless you're talking about power cables on access points or other unrelated tech used on devices that have ethernet / whatever AS WELL AS WiFi?
- pvg 8y ago
  All-caps italics is an interesting choice. Is that both emphasized AND shouted?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - laumars 8y ago
    Haha yeah on reflection it does look a bit silly. I was intending for it just to stand out against the camelcase of "WiFi" but the caps was a poor choice in hindsight.
- gaius 8y ago
  Except there literally isn't any wires in WiFi. You think WiFi connects your laptop directly to the server in the datacentre? Interesting.
  - laumars 8y ago
    > Except there literally isn't any wires in WiFi. > You think WiFi connects your laptop directly to the server in the datacentre? Interesting. The way you've selectively quoted one sentence out of what is a very short post anyway just so you can imply that I'm oblivious to other infrastructure - even when my very next sentence describes other infrastructure - is in very poor taste. Plus you're still failed to prove point. Yes ethernet over cat5e/6 cables and fibre exist, but they're not WiFi. Neither is 4G, Bluetooth, nor FM radio despite actually being wireless (unlike cat6 / fibre). What you're arguing is beyond nonsensical; it's like saying "I drive to the railway station every morning therefore the train I then catch is also classified as a car." The daft thing is if you'd talked about the wireless radio's antenna then you might have had a genuine point. Yet you went the "network cables are WiFi as well" argument instead. Go figure.
    - gaius 8y ago
      is in very poor taste. I believe my analogy to be a sound one, in that all wireless does is insulate the end user from mile upon mile of wiring, just as serverless insulated the user from racks upon racks of servers, and that you were - and are - being needlessly pedantic.
      - laumars 8y ago
        I don't think it's being pedantic if your analogy is based on a basic premise that is fundamentally untrue. I get there is no such thing as a perfect analogy but I'd at least expect the subject to be factually acuate even if the comparison is subjective.
        dang 8y ago
        Would both of you please stop this ridiculous spat.
        laumars 8y ago
        What spat? This is the first time I've chatted to the guy and I harbor no ill will towards him. Isn't the point of HN that you can have a discussion when you disagree with someone?
        gaius 8y ago
        Likewise :-)
        dang 8y ago
        The point of HN is that you can have a civil, substantive discussion. I called it a spat because you both got personal. It's nice that you both enjoyed it, but it's still against the rules here. It sets a bad example for others, who unfortunately aren't so convivial.
        laumars 8y ago
mmt 8y ago
I've read this analogy before, but it's weak enough to be inapplicable. With wireless networking and even phones, the wires have actually been eliminated, replaced wholesale by something else, radio. A better analogy would be something like the powerline ethernet systems, but nobody is calling them something controversial like "wireless" or "cableless". Put another way, I've seen cloud computing (of which "serverless" is, arguably, merely an evolution into increasing levels of abstraction) called "somebody else's servers". The equivalent with the Wifi analogy would be "somebody else's wires", and, usually, what wires there are, for the backhaul [1], aren't even somebody else's. EDIT: Ultimately, my point is this: The analogy is weak becasue WiFi is not an abstraction layer on top of wired networking that merely hides the existence of (and, ideally, some of the downsides of dealing with) the wires, instead being a different technology with different upsides and downsides. Serverless is such an abstraction layer. [1] Which brings up a nitpick: Wifi can remain even wireless in its entirety, with various mesh networking techniques.
- gaius 8y ago
  the wires have actually been eliminated I guess you don’t understand WiFi then, it’s wireless between you and the basestation (say 10m) then all wired from there to the server (which might be thousands of miles). You just don’t see those wires - and the proof is you don’t even realise they exist
  - laumars 8y ago
    I've wired data centres so I'm aware wires exist. However wires are not WiFi. The WiFi in your example ends at the base station. Everything thereafter is still infrastructure but it's not WiFi.

by gaius 8y ago

laumars 8y ago

Except there literally isn't any wires in WiFi. Unless you're talking about power cables on access points or other unrelated tech used on devices that have ethernet / whatever AS WELL AS WiFi?

pvg 8y ago
All-caps italics is an interesting choice. Is that both emphasized AND shouted?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- laumars 8y ago
  Haha yeah on reflection it does look a bit silly. I was intending for it just to stand out against the camelcase of "WiFi" but the caps was a poor choice in hindsight.
gaius 8y ago
Except there literally isn't any wires in WiFi. You think WiFi connects your laptop directly to the server in the datacentre? Interesting.
- laumars 8y ago
  > Except there literally isn't any wires in WiFi. > You think WiFi connects your laptop directly to the server in the datacentre? Interesting. The way you've selectively quoted one sentence out of what is a very short post anyway just so you can imply that I'm oblivious to other infrastructure - even when my very next sentence describes other infrastructure - is in very poor taste. Plus you're still failed to prove point. Yes ethernet over cat5e/6 cables and fibre exist, but they're not WiFi. Neither is 4G, Bluetooth, nor FM radio despite actually being wireless (unlike cat6 / fibre). What you're arguing is beyond nonsensical; it's like saying "I drive to the railway station every morning therefore the train I then catch is also classified as a car." The daft thing is if you'd talked about the wireless radio's antenna then you might have had a genuine point. Yet you went the "network cables are WiFi as well" argument instead. Go figure.
  - gaius 8y ago
    is in very poor taste. I believe my analogy to be a sound one, in that all wireless does is insulate the end user from mile upon mile of wiring, just as serverless insulated the user from racks upon racks of servers, and that you were - and are - being needlessly pedantic.
    - laumars 8y ago
      I don't think it's being pedantic if your analogy is based on a basic premise that is fundamentally untrue. I get there is no such thing as a perfect analogy but I'd at least expect the subject to be factually acuate even if the comparison is subjective.
      - dang 8y ago
        Would both of you please stop this ridiculous spat.
        laumars 8y ago
        What spat? This is the first time I've chatted to the guy and I harbor no ill will towards him. Isn't the point of HN that you can have a discussion when you disagree with someone?
        gaius 8y ago
        Likewise :-)
        dang 8y ago
        The point of HN is that you can have a civil, substantive discussion. I called it a spat because you both got personal. It's nice that you both enjoyed it, but it's still against the rules here. It sets a bad example for others, who unfortunately aren't so convivial.
        laumars 8y ago

mmt 8y ago

I've read this analogy before, but it's weak enough to be inapplicable. With wireless networking and even phones, the wires have actually been eliminated, replaced wholesale by something else, radio. A better analogy would be something like the powerline ethernet systems, but nobody is calling them something controversial like "wireless" or "cableless". Put another way, I've seen cloud computing (of which "serverless" is, arguably, merely an evolution into increasing levels of abstraction) called "somebody else's servers". The equivalent with the Wifi analogy would be "somebody else's wires", and, usually, what wires there are, for the backhaul [1], aren't even somebody else's. EDIT: Ultimately, my point is this: The analogy is weak becasue WiFi is not an abstraction layer on top of wired networking that merely hides the existence of (and, ideally, some of the downsides of dealing with) the wires, instead being a different technology with different upsides and downsides. Serverless is such an abstraction layer. [1] Which brings up a nitpick: Wifi can remain even wireless in its entirety, with various mesh networking techniques.

gaius 8y ago
the wires have actually been eliminated I guess you don’t understand WiFi then, it’s wireless between you and the basestation (say 10m) then all wired from there to the server (which might be thousands of miles). You just don’t see those wires - and the proof is you don’t even realise they exist
- laumars 8y ago
  I've wired data centres so I'm aware wires exist. However wires are not WiFi. The WiFi in your example ends at the base station. Everything thereafter is still infrastructure but it's not WiFi.