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

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#51

Post by sytse »

jondubois wrote: post #34

I agree that Docker is not serverless, but I think that it does replace the need for serverless services if coupled with an orchestrator such as Kubernetes, Swarm or Mesos. The first bullet point in the article is true when taken in its entirety but it's also misleading because using Docker with an orchestrator like Kubernetes does significantly reduce the need for maintenance - You do have to design your apps in a p…

I totally agree with your comment. I think that the potential of container schedulers will start showing and will become popular.

Martin Fowler defined serverless as "bringing entire applications up and down for every request". http://martinfowler.com/articles/serverless.html

I don't think that this is what we do with containers, they mostly stay active when there are no requests since they take more than 20ms to boot up.

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#52

Post by jsymolon »

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.

> means just what I choose it to mean

No. Not if both parties don't agree on a common definition, one party can "move the goalposts".

It could mean A one day and then B another. Look at all the trouble with TLAs.

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#53

Post by vectorpush »

A PaaS is not serverless either. We embrace the fluidity of language because that is the pragmatic choice, but using counter-intuitive terms with misleading semantics is not pragmatic so we should reject such terms instead of muddling the meaning of well established terms of art.

Everyone can pretty much agree on what constitutes a "server" so I don't see why we should use confusing terms that belie our shared understanding of this term.

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#54

Post by kowdermeister »

kordless wrote: post #49
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 b…

There are harmful words in use, but obviously it needs a user base to spread, the two can't live without each other. I'm not talking about swear words, but words that offend or misinform people or summarize a concept that can be harmful or generate controversy. Take web 2.0 for example. It caused quite a stir because nobody was sure what's 1.0 vs 2.0 was, then it faded away. I consider homeopathy a harmful word too. It sounds innocent, memorable and somewhat legit, but it's a dangerous thing.

I think that if many people point out that a word is pointless, inaccurate and deceptive, then that user base can fade too, therefore it makes sense to attack the word and not go ad hominem on the users.

> Gmail is "serverless" for me, but not Google.

Thanks for bringing this up, for me as a user, gmail is nothing but a webapp for an email server. So is SaaS a better category for it or serverless? Without net connection (to a server) it's pretty useless. Even from the user point of view it's not clear what the term should cover.

After all, we should focus on the technology, because that's promising at least.

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#55

Post by icebraining »

sytse wrote: post #51
jondubois wrote: post #34

I agree that Docker is not serverless, but I think that it does replace the need for serverless services if coupled with an orchestrator such as Kubernetes, Swarm or Mesos. The first bullet point in the article is true when taken in its entirety but it's also misleading because using Docker with an orchestrator like Kubernetes does significantly reduce the need for maintenance - You do have to design your apps in a p…

I totally agree with your comment. I think that the potential of container schedulers will start showing and will become popular. Martin Fowler defined serverless as "bringing entire applications up and down for every request". http://martinfowler.com/articles/serverless.html I don't think that this is what we do with containers, they mostly stay active when there are no requests since they take more than 20ms to boo…

Thing is, it's not what Amazon does with Lambda either; so if the prime example of serverless, isn't, what is?

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/container-reuse-in-lamb...

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#57

Post by eigenframe »

jasode wrote: post #13
jackweirdy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the deeper we go into this discussion the more philosophically ambiguous it gets. If I think of the most basic, abstract definition of a server I can, I'd say it's a piece of software at a known location outside of the client process, to which a client goes to transmit a message (and optionally have future messages back and forth in the same "session"). I would say Lambda is not serverless because it depends…

>If I think of the most basic, abstract definition of a server I can, I'd say it's a piece of software at a known location outside of the client process, But you're trying to reduce it down to a perfect singular definition. English doesn't work like that and we'll just end up in contradictions as I will demonstrate further down in my comment. >I would say Lambda is not serverless because it depends on software outsid…

It seems like in any case, use of "server" is generalizable or stable over situations where we have "an entity communicating requests to another entity which is responsible for servicing those requests." The problem here is that the word is invoked so as to distinguish entities at different layers of abstraction (a physical machine, a "platform", a set of supporting libraries and runtimes, a process, a function).

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#58

Post by dang »

seangrogg wrote: post #56

"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" That's pretty much all I'm seeing in the comments, just with "Serverless" instead.

If I'm not mistaken, congratulations on getting the capitalization just right there.

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#59

Post by shakna »

jasode wrote: post #13
jackweirdy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the deeper we go into this discussion the more philosophically ambiguous it gets. If I think of the most basic, abstract definition of a server I can, I'd say it's a piece of software at a known location outside of the client process, to which a client goes to transmit a message (and optionally have future messages back and forth in the same "session"). I would say Lambda is not serverless because it depends…

>If I think of the most basic, abstract definition of a server I can, I'd say it's a piece of software at a known location outside of the client process, But you're trying to reduce it down to a perfect singular definition. English doesn't work like that and we'll just end up in contradictions as I will demonstrate further down in my comment. >I would say Lambda is not serverless because it depends on software outsid…

Yet, if we do not have clearly defined definitions, then we may as well not be speaking at all.

A clear description of Docker encapsulates it as a container.

A clear description of Lambda explains its relationships with functions and statelessness.

Using a term abstractly, in such a way that it can collide with a word that for all intents and purposes appears to be its opposite [0], shouts to a degradation of language use. Metalanguage is in use within various fields, to make it easier to communicate concepts. Here, using a nonstandard word without clear meaning is pointless.

That this is being discussed is proof enough for me that the word is ill-suited to its task.

[0] "I deployed a serverless stack that serves up information from our database."

Re: Docker isn't serverless

#60

Post by jackweirdy »

icebraining wrote: post #48
bitwize wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And thus, the first world war.
Post reply on HN