3 ms·
Guessing this is a response to the article I wrote that showed up on HN last week "Why Did Heroku Fail" [0] I'm glad the author touched upon some of the outsiz
by rckrd 4y ago
Guessing this is a response to the article I wrote that showed up on HN last week "Why Did Heroku Fail" [0]
I'm glad the author touched upon some of the outsized contributions Heroku made to DevOps and infra. I don't think many will argue with that. I was actually thinking of Vercel when I wrote the piece. What does a PaaS need to look like in 2022 to succeed? The author briefly mentions the current state of Heroku -- I think we all will also agree they deserved to capture more of the value that they created. The bigger question (in my mind) is how?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31372675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31372675
- ghaff 4y agoPaaSs were always sort of a funny in-between category that were sort of defined by not being IaaS or SaaS--though I'm not sure the NIST definitions are super-useful at this point. As the article says, a PaaS like Heroku made it easy for developers to get going. OpenShift started as something similar (although polyglot) from the Makara acquisition. However, enterprises, by and large, found they were too limited. I agree with the gist of the article that some subset of PaaS or would-be PaaS users went to serverless. And many others went to Kubernetes-based container platforms--whether on-prem, hosted on a cloud, or some cloud-native service like EKS.