Serverless runs on servers

[email protected]

It's more like "it has servers, but you don't have to manage them, or hire someone to manage them, and we will charge you a lot more, but maybe you'll save money because you don't have to hire someone".

[email protected]

Not really. Serverless is OpEx. VPS is OpEx, but you also need OpEx budget for a person who can manage servers, not just a programmer.

VPS isn't rocket science, so you can probably find someone who can both program things and do the basic VPS server management needed. But, it is work that needs to be done by someone. In some cases, like if you're hiring scientists from academia who have never done any of their own sysadmin type stuff, it might be easier to just go with serverless so all they need to do is write programs.

[email protected]

Not really. Serverless is "you don't need to manage the servers". For some businesses, even managing a VPS is too technical a task. So, you could either go out and hire someone who can do that, or you can go serverless and pay a bit more for that, but save by not needing additional expertise.

[email protected]

From the point of view of the customer it is serverless. Maybe it's being done on a server, but maybe it's a magical genie in a bottle. You don't have to care because from your point of view you upload code and that code magically runs.

This fits perfectly in with other "-less" words. Like many "priceless" museum artifacts were bought and sold before they showed up in the museum. To the visitor and maybe to the museum they're priceless, but to the dealers who found it for the museum it had a price.

[email protected]

Yeah, and the big selling point for serverless is that you only deal with the code you want to run, none of that "server management" stuff. It's a perfectly reasonable name based on what's appealing about it.

[email protected]

I agree, and If you can't manage your own health, don't be alive, which is why the world should consist 100% of medical doctors.

[email protected]

It may also be cheaper because they only run (and acal) when needed, instead of having a few extra servers running "just in case".

[email protected]

Until you get a random ddoss attack or bug and get a 1000 times higher bill.

[email protected]

Sure, but they're likely not serverless.

[email protected]

We all are disagreeing on the naming not the functionality. It used to be the case that names in tech were descriptive, just by reading it out loud you can understand the tech (e,g. SQL, OOP etc.).

"Serverless" is a marketing term. A better name would be "server agnostic deployment" or many many other ways to describe it.

The fact is, this name was created by the people selling it not the people using it. And i am sure the idea is not new, but the serverless name tries to make it seem like a comparatively recent thing so people would buy it more.

[email protected]

Maybe it's being done on a server, but maybe it's a magical genie in a bottle. You don't have to care because from your point of view you upload code and that code magically runs.

Hard disagree. As someone who wrote several AWS lambdas, I know you have to care that it's being run on a server and you have to adjust to your code to work within that very-specific server system.

If anything it should be called "poly-server" because you cannot write your code without considering that it can be executed from several servers around the same time. I don't buy what you're selling here, the other -less examples you gave don't seem to betray their terminology at all to me but "server less" will always sound wrong to me.

[email protected]

The first time I heard the term wireless, I was a little kid and I understood very quickly. When I first heard the term "serverless" I was an adult who had been programming a couple years. I remember genuinely being confused as strings of unparseable buzzwords bounced off my brain. A minute or two into the explanation, I'm pretty sure I said "oh, so it actually does run on a server". The ops person was forced to say yes. It was a genuinely confusing and imo pointless conversation that we shouldn't have needed to have.

[email protected]

I thought it was windows 11 home

Allah

page 196 of CompTIA Security+ SY0-701 Cert Guide

Serverless

Another popular architecture is the serverless architecture. Be aware that serverless
does not mean that you do not need a server somewhere. Instead, serverless archi-
tecture involves using cloud platforms to host and/or to develop code. For example,
you might have a serverless app that is distributed in a cloud provider like Amazon
Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, or Google Cloud Platform (GCP).
Serverless is a cloud computing execution model in which the cloud provider (AWS,
Azure, Google Cloud, and so on) dynamically manages the allocation and provision-
ing of servers. Serverless applications run in stateless containers that are ephemeral
and event triggered (fully managed by the cloud provider). AWS Lambda is one of
the most popular serverless architectures in the industry.

[email protected]

Sure, you definitely don't need a devops to handle a serverless deployment.

[email protected]

Me before opening this thread: I bet it's a weasel term for cloud bullshit.

Fucking marketing dickheads.

[email protected]

Were you doing any serious "devops" at the time? I didn't struggle with "serverless" knowing that otherwise I had to manually provision servers, virtual or bare metal.