5 ms·

"Serverless" is a an Orwellian name for a server-based system!

by the__alchemist 1y ago

magnusm 1y ago
Thats true!
Biganon 1y ago
"There's no cloud; it's just someone else's computer"
Spivak 1y ago
But your so called "no-code" system runs on code. Checkmate atheists. There becomes a point where being mad that the specific flavor of PaaS termed serverless achtually has severs is just finding a thing to be mad at.
- StevenWaterman 1y ago
  and your wireless modem has wires
- zahlman 1y ago
  In the "no-code" system, the end user does not write code. In the "serverless" system, the end user does connect to a server. It doesn't just "have" servers; they aren't a hidden implementation detail. Connecting to a website is an instrumental part of using the software.
  - viccis 1y ago
    "Serverless" refers to the demarcation point in the shared responsibility model. It means there aren't any servers about as much as "cloud hosting" means the data centers are flying.
  - immibis 1y ago
    In the "code" system the end user does not write code either - that's the developer's job. In the "no code" system it's the developer who doesn't write code, and in the "serverless" system it's the developer who doesn't set up servers.
- the__alchemist 1y ago
  This is where is becomes confusing to me: Here are a few types of software/infrastructure. Embedded devices. Operating systems. PC software. Mobile device software. Web frontends. GPU kernels. These all truly don't use servers. When I hear "serverless", I would think it is something like that. Yet, they're talking about web servers. So it feels like a deception, or something poorly named. If you are in the niche of IT, servers, HTTP operations etc, I can see why the name would make sense, because in that domain, you are always working with servers, so the name describes an abstraction where their technical details are hidden.
AndrewDucker 1y ago
"Serverless" means you don't have to configure the servers, or know what servers, where, are running your code. "Here's some code, make sure it runs once an hour, I don't care where."
maxbond 1y ago
Bit of a nit pick but this is a pet peeve of mine. Creating a new word for a more specific category is never Orwellian. The project in 1984 was to create a language which was less expressive. They were destroying words describing fine distinctions and replacing them with words that elided those distinctions. Creating a new word to highlight a distinction is the opposite. There's definitely criticisms to be made of the term serverless and how it obscures the role of servers, but Orwellian is not the correct category. Maybe we could say such services run on servelets to describe how they're "lighter" in some sense but still servers.
- the__alchemist 1y ago
  Yea, I agree after more thought. I think the key is what you said; the term is useful for dividing within a specific domain. People outside that domain see the word and think "those guys are calling this Category-A thing "not-category-A", that makes no sense! Inside the Category A world, there is much more nuance.
  - maxbond 1y ago
    I doubleplus appreciate the thought.
- einsteinx2 1y ago
  They’re clearly referring to “doublethink” which was absolutely part of Newspeak in 1984… Quote from the book: “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.” Serverless being in fact server-based seems like a pretty clear example of this, and so calling it an Orwellian term seems perfectly reasonable.
  - maxbond 1y ago
    It's not doublethink any time there's a misnomer. It doesn't require an active effort of cognitive dissonance. It's not a manipulation or a conspiracy. You don't have to get the severance operation to use an FaaS offering. Serverless eliminates the management of servers; the name is meaningful and directionally aligned with what the thing does, even if it can cause confusion when you first encounter the topic. That doesn't mean it isn't a bad name. But it is not comparable to the Ministry of Plenty deliberately causing famine. "Famine" and "plenty" are directionally opposed and so require dissonance to maintain. "Serverless" and "abstracting resources provided by servers so that you can focus on application logic rather than managing physical or virtual machines" are not opposed and only require learning the terminology. There's no active, ongoing effort to deliberately maintain cognitive dissonance. Unless you find yourself in a situation where you have that queasy feeling of being gaslit or having to actively push thoughts out of your head to continue operating under premises you know are false, no, it is not doublethink.
Nextgrid 1y ago
It's just the tech-bro version of "shared hosting", now with a 10000% markup and per-request billing.

"Serverless" is a an Orwellian name for a server-based system!

magnusm 1y ago

Thats true!

Biganon 1y ago

"There's no cloud; it's just someone else's computer"

Spivak 1y ago

But your so called "no-code" system runs on code. Checkmate atheists. There becomes a point where being mad that the specific flavor of PaaS termed serverless achtually has severs is just finding a thing to be mad at.

StevenWaterman 1y ago
and your wireless modem has wires
zahlman 1y ago
In the "no-code" system, the end user does not write code. In the "serverless" system, the end user does connect to a server. It doesn't just "have" servers; they aren't a hidden implementation detail. Connecting to a website is an instrumental part of using the software.
- viccis 1y ago
  "Serverless" refers to the demarcation point in the shared responsibility model. It means there aren't any servers about as much as "cloud hosting" means the data centers are flying.
- immibis 1y ago
  In the "code" system the end user does not write code either - that's the developer's job. In the "no code" system it's the developer who doesn't write code, and in the "serverless" system it's the developer who doesn't set up servers.
the__alchemist 1y ago
This is where is becomes confusing to me: Here are a few types of software/infrastructure. Embedded devices. Operating systems. PC software. Mobile device software. Web frontends. GPU kernels. These all truly don't use servers. When I hear "serverless", I would think it is something like that. Yet, they're talking about web servers. So it feels like a deception, or something poorly named. If you are in the niche of IT, servers, HTTP operations etc, I can see why the name would make sense, because in that domain, you are always working with servers, so the name describes an abstraction where their technical details are hidden.

AndrewDucker 1y ago

"Serverless" means you don't have to configure the servers, or know what servers, where, are running your code. "Here's some code, make sure it runs once an hour, I don't care where."

maxbond 1y ago

Bit of a nit pick but this is a pet peeve of mine. Creating a new word for a more specific category is never Orwellian. The project in 1984 was to create a language which was less expressive. They were destroying words describing fine distinctions and replacing them with words that elided those distinctions. Creating a new word to highlight a distinction is the opposite. There's definitely criticisms to be made of the term serverless and how it obscures the role of servers, but Orwellian is not the correct category. Maybe we could say such services run on servelets to describe how they're "lighter" in some sense but still servers.

the__alchemist 1y ago
Yea, I agree after more thought. I think the key is what you said; the term is useful for dividing within a specific domain. People outside that domain see the word and think "those guys are calling this Category-A thing "not-category-A", that makes no sense! Inside the Category A world, there is much more nuance.
- maxbond 1y ago
  I doubleplus appreciate the thought.
einsteinx2 1y ago
They’re clearly referring to “doublethink” which was absolutely part of Newspeak in 1984… Quote from the book: “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental, nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy: they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.” Serverless being in fact server-based seems like a pretty clear example of this, and so calling it an Orwellian term seems perfectly reasonable.
- maxbond 1y ago
  It's not doublethink any time there's a misnomer. It doesn't require an active effort of cognitive dissonance. It's not a manipulation or a conspiracy. You don't have to get the severance operation to use an FaaS offering. Serverless eliminates the management of servers; the name is meaningful and directionally aligned with what the thing does, even if it can cause confusion when you first encounter the topic. That doesn't mean it isn't a bad name. But it is not comparable to the Ministry of Plenty deliberately causing famine. "Famine" and "plenty" are directionally opposed and so require dissonance to maintain. "Serverless" and "abstracting resources provided by servers so that you can focus on application logic rather than managing physical or virtual machines" are not opposed and only require learning the terminology. There's no active, ongoing effort to deliberately maintain cognitive dissonance. Unless you find yourself in a situation where you have that queasy feeling of being gaslit or having to actively push thoughts out of your head to continue operating under premises you know are false, no, it is not doublethink.

Nextgrid 1y ago

It's just the tech-bro version of "shared hosting", now with a 10000% markup and per-request billing.