Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Docker isn't serverless

serverlesscode.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#41

Post by arpa »

bitwize wrote: post #35
cortesoft wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always understood a 'server' to be the process (or machine) that accepts the connection; the client is the process (or machine) that initiates the connection. Sometimes the same machine can be both the client and server. In your BitTorrent example, users are both clients and servers.

If you try to nail it down to a specific definition, you'll wind up in contradictions. English doesn't work like that; when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, no more and no less.

Doubleplusgood, fine sir. Doubleminusgood on the language opressors!

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#42

Post by kowdermeister »

"Well, serverless isn’t really a technique for building distributed apps - it’s about building useful apps"

"But serverless doesn’t mean there is no Docker – in fact, Docker is serverless."

Yet another case where it's clear that "serverless" is a harmful term. Everybody means something else by it and there's no wonder that posts like this surface.

Yes, Docker is not serverless, because it runs on a server, like your lambda functions.

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#44

Post by cocktailpeanuts »

hacknat wrote: post #38
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #24

I can understand why people try to come up with a definitive definition of "serverless" but.... "Serverless" is an adjective. Adjectives are used to provide auxiliary meaning to the noun it's attached to, which means it depends on context. It could be a "serverless website", it could be a "serverless hosting", it could even be a "serverless diner"!

It's funny to watch people debate the meaning of this word as though it's some rigorously technical term that has been around forever. It's just the latest buzz word for the latest evolution in simplifying/hiding operations from developers.

From marketing point of view, I think it's the best naming ever, since it makes people talk about it more.

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#46

Post by falcolas »

pbiggar wrote: post #17

"serverless" is a new term that people have been using in tons of different ways. To the author, frankly I don't think you get to say what's serverless and what isn't. I think only point 1 is agreed upon - the rest is up in the air. Point 3: that it must be function-as-a-service: I dont agree there. Counter-point: if your backend is google sheets, or plain S3, it's certainly serverless. Docker? Maybe. Depends how it'…

> if your backend is [...] S3, it's certainly serverless

Is it really serverless if you have to configure the web server serving the files? If you have to manage ACLs, regional distribution, compression, CDN mirroring, versioning, DNS...

If you move to Lambda, you're also tossing in the API gateway configuration, Kenesis streams, datastores, IAM permissions and roles, throttling behavior, scheduled tasks, VPCs, subnets...

Just because you're not starting and stopping the processes doesn't mean you're not managing the server.

/devilsadvocate

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#47

Post by GrinningFool »

dubmax123 wrote: post #20

I think serverless has bad semantics for it's new connotation (which doesn't even seem to be universally agreed upon). Maybe we should just focus on value, not paying for more infrastructure than you need, and building useful things. Maybe we could just call it practical?

I was going to make a comment about how doing that would mean we couldn't get to the next phase of the cycle, when we start talking about "serverless microservices". Then I saw we're already there[1], and died a little on the inside.

[1] https://gun.io/blog/serverless-microservices-with-zappa-and-...

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#48

Post by icebraining »

bitwize wrote: post #35
cortesoft wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always understood a 'server' to be the process (or machine) that accepts the connection; the client is the process (or machine) that initiates the connection. Sometimes the same machine can be both the client and server. In your BitTorrent example, users are both clients and servers.

If you try to nail it down to a specific definition, you'll wind up in contradictions. English doesn't work like that; when I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, no more and no less.

Since the reader has no way of telling what definition you happen to choose for each of those words - as any explanation is itself made using other undecipherable words - communication is impossible.

I have therefore decided to assume you are declaring war on Austria.

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#49

Post by kordless »

kowdermeister wrote: post #42

"Well, serverless isn’t really a technique for building distributed apps - it’s about building useful apps" "But serverless doesn’t mean there is no Docker – in fact, Docker is serverless." Yet another case where it's clear that "serverless" is a harmful term. Everybody means something else by it and there's no wonder that posts like this surface. Yes, Docker is not serverless, because it runs on a server, like your…

The idea that words themselves can be harmful is ridiculous. People create and use words. The people who say words can be harmful, if they are presenting facts in the way they see them, as opposed to the way they are observed in reality. Stop attacking words and start addressing those who use them in a harmful and dissonance creating way.

The reason people become polarized over a given subject, especially when it's boiled down to a single term, is because we all have different perceptions based on our roles and responsibilities. The term "serverless" can be applied to the users of a given application. Gmail is "serverless" for me, but not Google. For Google ops, Gmail is definately "server" based. Flipping terms, by those who seek additional resources for themselves, their company and their limited partners, is simply a means to hide the truth of the matter behind running their software.

To achieve infrastructure which is trustworthy and not owned by self, we must implement trusted architectures which can adapt to changing conditions and provide fault tolerance to a given level for an immediate cost. Docker has barely scratched the surface of what must be done to address these architectural requirements. The unfortunate bit is that their business model is likely to take them in the opposite direction of where we need to go with all this. That's just the way innovation works when it's driven by VC capital.

Post reply on HN