"Serverless" - the term itself is a misnomer because it implies that "no server is needed". That hit big time with the C-Level-Executives, because servers tend to cost a lot, both in terms of operations as well as in terms of software development. "We can get rid of all of our servers? Great, let's do serverless then!" False marketing at its finest.
The article was a good read for me, I wasn't aware of many of those things. As a developer, I would be already happy if all decision makers understood that "serverless" doesn't mean "no server".
What I understand is that it's serverless from the user perspective. I, as a developer, really don't care at all about servers. And that's unequivocally right, not a misnomer in my opinion.
We don't go out saying that "sharing economy" is a misnomer because someone ultimately owns Uber cars.
It is indeed a marketing name, as anything else that helps paying our salaries as developers. I think this is just a tendency of developers to be "against" marketing...
Re-thinking developer experience • Product @Gitpod 🍊 Helping folks get their start in cloud • @openupthecloud ☁️ AWS Community Builder 🛠 Replies in GIFS 😃
Yeah I think a lot of these difficulties only show up under quite large scale scenarios, so most might blissfully be unaware. But of course there are many large scale companies thinking that serverless will solve all of their scale related problems. And of course, the cloud vendors aren't going to be shouting about the difficulties.
At a certain scale the "physics" of the underlying servers does come back into play and we're making similar trade-off's that you make with a regular server architecture, such as looking at provisioning, DDOS protection, etc. Maybe at some point it will be truly magically hands-off, but until that point there are a few more things we need to consider when we're adopting.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
"Serverless" - the term itself is a misnomer because it implies that "no server is needed". That hit big time with the C-Level-Executives, because servers tend to cost a lot, both in terms of operations as well as in terms of software development. "We can get rid of all of our servers? Great, let's do serverless then!" False marketing at its finest.
The article was a good read for me, I wasn't aware of many of those things. As a developer, I would be already happy if all decision makers understood that "serverless" doesn't mean "no server".
What I understand is that it's serverless from the user perspective. I, as a developer, really don't care at all about servers. And that's unequivocally right, not a misnomer in my opinion.
We don't go out saying that "sharing economy" is a misnomer because someone ultimately owns Uber cars.
It is indeed a marketing name, as anything else that helps paying our salaries as developers. I think this is just a tendency of developers to be "against" marketing...
Yeah I think a lot of these difficulties only show up under quite large scale scenarios, so most might blissfully be unaware. But of course there are many large scale companies thinking that serverless will solve all of their scale related problems. And of course, the cloud vendors aren't going to be shouting about the difficulties.
At a certain scale the "physics" of the underlying servers does come back into play and we're making similar trade-off's that you make with a regular server architecture, such as looking at provisioning, DDOS protection, etc. Maybe at some point it will be truly magically hands-off, but until that point there are a few more things we need to consider when we're adopting.