4 ms·
Initially, I was responding to agree with you. However, my first renaming thought was for autoscaling aurora which I realized was incorrect because you still h
by mrep 8y ago
Initially, I was responding to agree with you. However, my first renaming thought was for autoscaling aurora which I realized was incorrect because you still have to deal with things like server security updates.
Serverless sounds like the better term to me still because it sounds exactly like what it describes: you never have to deal with a server. Although, I would actually add auto scaling to the name (serverless autoscaling aurora) so users know they don't have to deal with servers nor autoscaling.
What do you guys think?
- mrep 8y agoCan any marketers comment because I feel like this has gotta be purely due to marketers not wanting their product to become a generic term since litery no company names any product in a way that directly describes their product.
- evfanknitram 8y agoSo Azure SQL Database, Azure Virtual Machines, Azure Bot Service does not describe the products? AWS is hilariousy bad at naming. Not all companies are.
- some_account 8y agoI very much prefer AWS names to the Azure naming, but I don't like Windows culture or behavior either so I think it's just general dislike of Microsoft software.
- evfanknitram 8y agoIt sounds like you describe something which is irrational.
- guitarbill 8y agoAzure does have a benefit of hindsight, and often their stuff is just named Azure + Obvious Name. On the other hand, they came up with Bing (talk about hilariously bad), and Azure. Which they've chosen to pronounce AZH-ər (Ajer) and not AZ-yoor (Ajur, like in Côte d'Azur). This is non-obvious, and makes them sound like uncultured Americans (like when you pronounce niche as nitch; instead of like cache, which I haven't heard pronounced catch (yet)).
- evfanknitram 8y agoYes. In my view, obvious names makes it easier to remember what something is or does. Understanding what Azure DNS do is easier than finding out and remembering what AWS Route 52 does.
- amaccuish 8y ago*53. It's the DNS port number, but yes, not a great name.
- wmf 8y agoYou don't really "deal with" servers in regular Aurora, but you do pay for them. So AFAIK regular Aurora is billed by the hour while "serverless" Aurora is by the hour but only during hours when it's being used. And serverless Lambda is billed per request, so it seems like AWS isn't even using a consistent definition.
- mrep 8y agoDon't you? It has been a while since I set one up but I'm pretty sure I had to set the versions and I think you have to launch 2 servers because they have to be part of a "cluster". Shit, I remember I was trying to delete them because I was just experimenting with it to compare with our RDS instances but I couldn't figure out how to delete them (aurora instance was slave to our normal RDS instance and the console kept complaining about something when I tried to delete them after my testing was done. My poor team is probably still paying for those instances)
- ksec 8y agoFunction as a Services? ( FaaS ) After all we have Container, Platform, Infrastructure as a Services.