3 ms·

Okay, it may very well be true that one particular serverless product is very expensive or overly complex. That’s a fine argument to make. But that has nothing

• rumanator 7y ago
  > But that has nothing to do with whether the term “serverless” has a well-established meaning. It’s not just a buzzword, or at least it’s not always used as a buzzword and does in fact have a straightforward meaning. You're confounding two independent issues: "serverless" being a buzzword, and "serverless" not having a precise and well established meaning. The fact that "serverless" is indeed a buzzword is indisputable. Thus the only issue that's up for debate is whether "serverless" has a precise and well established meaning. The problem with the assertion that "serverless" is a meaningful term is that it turns a blind eye to the fact that "serverless" is expected to be an umbrella term that refers to multiple concepts, some of which are well established. For example, "serverless" is used by some people to refer to a more concrete and specific and well established concept of Function-as-a-Service (FaaS). Yet, albeit FaaS is portraied as a subset of "serverless" concept, FaaS does not represent the concept, which is assumed to be more broadly defined. This ambiguity and vagueness opens the door to discussions on whether pain old "managed services" warrant the "serverless" buzzword, which would underline the buzzword factor by the way an old and well established concept is being rebranded. Then there are futile discussions on whether irrelevant and secondary implementation details of managed services, such as the degree of automation and auto-scaling, are in line with what is true "servelessness". But in the end this collective grasping at straws just underlines the lack of substance behind the "serverless" keyword.
  • baddox 7y ago
    > The fact that "serverless" is indeed a buzzword is indisputable. It can be used as a buzzword, but it isn’t always. The same goes for “the cloud.” It’s used in marketing because it sounds cool and people think they need it, but at the same time it can be perfectly clear to use the term in technical contexts. > For example, "serverless" is used by some people to refer to a more concrete and specific and well established concept of Function-as-a-Service (FaaS). Yet, albeit FaaS is portraied as a subset of "serverless" concept, FaaS does not represent the concept, which is assumed to be more broadly defined. What’s vague about this? FaaS is a serverless product, but not all serverless products are FaaS.
    • rumanator 7y ago
      > What’s vague about this? FaaS is a serverless product, but not all serverless products are FaaS. That was precisely the point I made. There's no need to repeat it. Yet, you've missed the point I've made subsequently, where I've specifically pointed out how the fact that the "serverless" buzzword is being tacked onto old and established technologies such as plain old managed services.