2 ms·

How in the world did "serverless" become an acceptable phrase among people who know IT? I'm genuinely curious about this. I think I understand what they're tryi

by jrm4 4y ago

How in the world did "serverless" become an acceptable phrase among people who know IT? I'm genuinely curious about this. I think I understand what they're trying to say with it but COME ON. Why not also call them "Electricity-free?" That's literally just as truthful. Which is to say, not at all.

helsinkiandrew 4y ago
> How in the world did "serverless" become an acceptable phrase among people who know IT? Isn't it a good phrase? It means you're not responsible for a "server/virtual server/container" 24/7 to provide your backend services - but are paying for usage when your functionality is executed.
- jrm4 4y ago
  No? It's a terrible phrase. What you're saying is you're managing my servers for me cool! Servers as a service or something like that. But that's much different from a term that implies "no more servers?" It's just really strange. HR Block wouldn't advertise as "tax-less," Waste management wouldn't advertise as "garbage-truck-less." Why not brag on what you're doing? Servers improved? Ultra-servers? Easy-servers? I don't know.
  - helsinkiandrew 4y ago
    > What you're saying is you're managing my servers for me cool! Servers as a service or something like that But that’s what virtual machines or container hosting services are doing. This is a level of abstraction higher than that - there’s no link between you code and any server instance. Ultimately when your code runs, it runs on a piece of hardware - a server. But it’s up to the serverless provider to choose where. If during the day your function call is invoked a million times, it could be run on the one or a million servers anywhere in the world. I think serverless is a better term for that than ultra or easy servers, when you don’t have to think about provisioning the size or quantity of servers you require. A better real world analogy might be the kitchens that share a seating area in a mall. Although they might still be considered ‘restaurants’ the are also ‘restaurantless’ as the tables and seats are provided to them/their customers on an as needed basis. A kitchen can serve as many diners as they are able, table provisioning is handled by someone else.
codetrotter 4y ago
I used to be upset too in the beginning. Eventually I realised it does not matter. The world has decided that “serverless” should be the word that we use when speaking about services that allow us to host websites etc on other people/other companies computers, where we are not responsible for managing the server. Serverless does not mean that there are no servers. Serverless means that there are no servers that you need to worry about. Accept it and life is ok :)
- jrm4 4y ago
  You have, perhaps inadvertently, confirmed my worst suspicions? In IT, when "the world" has decided something that we geeks are just supposed to accept, it feels like most of the time it means both the geeks and regular people are getting screwed in favor of BUSINESS MARCHES ON.
qgin 4y ago
It's serverless in the sense that you are responsible for 0% of server configuration or operation. It's your deployment that is serverless, not that servers don't exist.
mypalmike 4y ago
Whatever the merits of calling it "serverless", it's been a term for years and is probably not going away. Debating it here (a common pastime) is a fruitless exercise.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Even if I don't change what people do, it's FAR from a fruitless exercise. It could at least ARGUABLY be a measure of "level of bullshit in the industry" which merits discussion.
CyberDildonics 4y ago
It's insane. Every time it's brought up people try to rationalize it too.

by jrm4 4y ago

helsinkiandrew 4y ago

> How in the world did "serverless" become an acceptable phrase among people who know IT? Isn't it a good phrase? It means you're not responsible for a "server/virtual server/container" 24/7 to provide your backend services - but are paying for usage when your functionality is executed.

jrm4 4y ago
No? It's a terrible phrase. What you're saying is you're managing my servers for me cool! Servers as a service or something like that. But that's much different from a term that implies "no more servers?" It's just really strange. HR Block wouldn't advertise as "tax-less," Waste management wouldn't advertise as "garbage-truck-less." Why not brag on what you're doing? Servers improved? Ultra-servers? Easy-servers? I don't know.
- helsinkiandrew 4y ago
  > What you're saying is you're managing my servers for me cool! Servers as a service or something like that But that’s what virtual machines or container hosting services are doing. This is a level of abstraction higher than that - there’s no link between you code and any server instance. Ultimately when your code runs, it runs on a piece of hardware - a server. But it’s up to the serverless provider to choose where. If during the day your function call is invoked a million times, it could be run on the one or a million servers anywhere in the world. I think serverless is a better term for that than ultra or easy servers, when you don’t have to think about provisioning the size or quantity of servers you require. A better real world analogy might be the kitchens that share a seating area in a mall. Although they might still be considered ‘restaurants’ the are also ‘restaurantless’ as the tables and seats are provided to them/their customers on an as needed basis. A kitchen can serve as many diners as they are able, table provisioning is handled by someone else.

codetrotter 4y ago

I used to be upset too in the beginning. Eventually I realised it does not matter. The world has decided that “serverless” should be the word that we use when speaking about services that allow us to host websites etc on other people/other companies computers, where we are not responsible for managing the server. Serverless does not mean that there are no servers. Serverless means that there are no servers that you need to worry about. Accept it and life is ok :)

jrm4 4y ago
You have, perhaps inadvertently, confirmed my worst suspicions? In IT, when "the world" has decided something that we geeks are just supposed to accept, it feels like most of the time it means both the geeks and regular people are getting screwed in favor of BUSINESS MARCHES ON.

qgin 4y ago

It's serverless in the sense that you are responsible for 0% of server configuration or operation. It's your deployment that is serverless, not that servers don't exist.

mypalmike 4y ago

Whatever the merits of calling it "serverless", it's been a term for years and is probably not going away. Debating it here (a common pastime) is a fruitless exercise.

jrm4 4y ago
Even if I don't change what people do, it's FAR from a fruitless exercise. It could at least ARGUABLY be a measure of "level of bullshit in the industry" which merits discussion.

CyberDildonics 4y ago

It's insane. Every time it's brought up people try to rationalize it too.