Serverless just means PaaS, right?
Docker isn't serverless
61–67 of 67 posts
Re: Docker isn't serverless
#62Just call it "cloud". That's already a meaningless catch-all term that covers everything.
Whenever I hear serverless, I think of
Re: Docker isn't serverless
#63Earlier 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…
> If we insist on 1 definition, we will have contradictions.
No, we will have things that doesn't fit the definition, and we will also have people who use the defintion wrongly.
But that's okay.
That's the whole point of definition, to be able to say whether things fit the definition.
If we insisted the "red" only has one definition, then we can tell that white is not red. And that's okay.
In your SQLite example, no, SQLite does not becomes db server because a server application wrap over it. File does not becomes file server just because it's shared over network.
Re: Docker isn't serverless
#64Earlier 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.
Then you should just be talking to only yourself.
Re: Docker isn't serverless
#65"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, subne…
The things that actually fits best with the new serverless term is - shared hosting. Just FTP some PHP files into a directory, and it's running.
Excuse me, I'm off to sell my marketing consultation services to GoDaddy and Hostgator.
Re: Docker isn't serverless
#66I would consider a project in Docker serverless if it is used in something like AWS EC2 Container Service (ECS).
Why? Even with ECS the container's host is maintained by you . It's hardly more "serverless" (less serverful?) than just running docker on EC2.
Hmmmm perhaps my definition of serverless is non-standard :) My thinking is that if you just have an endpoint that you can throw a container at, or something like RDS for databases, then that's serverless enough for me (at least it takes out a huge operations cost, especially for smaller companies). But I get that it's not true 'servless' in compared to lambda etc.
Re: Docker isn't serverless
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
> If we insist on 1 definition, we will have contradictions. And if we keep on using catch-all buzzwords such as "serverless", it makes words void of any real meaning.
Serverless has a very definite meaning to me if I'm tired of administering Linux servers.