I think the analogy falls apart because in the part of the system that's referred to as "wireless", there is literally no wire. The serverless comparison would be more like if they used a lot of zip ties and some well-placed rugs so you never saw the wires going directly to you computer and called that "wireless".
> Just because you're not managing a server doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Wireless internet is still connected to the rest of the internet via a wire somewhere; the obvious point being made is that your phone or laptop doesn't need a wire. Serverless here doesn't mean that servers no longer exist, but that you are not working at the server level to accomplish what you're trying to do.
Wireless refers to the lack of cables _between_ my device and the router. "Serverless" things however are part of the same infrastructure that serve other web services. They are sitting on servers. Computers which has a CPU to execute the functions. We call them servers, therefore serverless is meaningless term.
Serverless doesn't mean servers don't exist, any more than calling a radio a "wireless" doesn't mean wires don't exist. It just means for the consumer, servers aren't a consideration, just as with a wireless wires aren't.
That's a fair point, but wireless internet is a different mode of delivery to your house, whereas "serverless" is just adding a layer of abstraction, and I don't really think that these things are analogous.
Wireless networking is wireless because communication between device and AP is wireless. Serverless has no point where there isn't a server involved. It's just a service that runs your program on a server you don't control. No definition of 'serverless' fits into that.
Do you also rail against "wireless" phones as there's wires involved somewhere?
It is called serverless as in the ideal state you let the scaling of the server be handled by someone else. Just like with cell phones you only care about the last bit before it gets to you.
Because with wireless networking, there is a major portion of the link that actually is wireless (and with some setups, it's entirely wireless). With "serverless" computing, there is no point at which a server is not being used.
My point was that I have never heard anyone describe a server or serverless in that way: as simply a process. I agree that thinking about server as a process/Daemon is a great way to frame serverless.
I've also not considered that wireless headphones have wires so it's been fun to think about that too.
Wireless is accurate for handsets, since you're not using a wire to exchange data, the communication is wireless.
Serverless is totally inaccurate for scripts uploaded ON a server. Since they are executed on a server. The scripts are executed and its result are potentially served from A SERVER. The fact that you don't manage it yourself doesn't change that.
That's an horrible example you are using to try to make your point, it just doesn't work.
I've seen distaste for the word "serverless" emerge a few times on HN and I really don't get it. Is it just excessive literalism? Of course I know that there are servers somewhere, the selling point of serverless is that as the user I generally don't have to think about them. My wireless vacuum presumably has wires in it, but I don't find that to be false advertising. The point is that the wires (and servers) don't get in my way :)
> I am sure people have said this but it's "serverless" from the perspective of the user (who is a developer in this case).
It's specifically not server-less. The developer is writing code that will be run on a server. They just don't control that server. That is literally no different than people who push regular Ruby/Python/PHP/NodeJS/Perl/etc apps to platforms platforms like Heroku, or like developers pushing CGI/PHP scripts to regular shared-hosting providers via FTP back in the day.
In all cases, the developer has very limited, if any control over the server, and just uploads their code to run.
> I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there.
No, it fucking isn't. "Wireless" describes a specific type of connectivity - either WiFi/Bluetooth style short-range local networking, or Cellular/WiMax style long-range "last mile" networking. For the specific connectivity that is described as "Wireless" THERE ARE NO FUCKING WIRES. It is very possible to operate a 100% wireless network - e.g. bluetooth device networking, or wifi LAN networking. You will only be able to connect to other devices on the same network, but internet access isn't what's being claimed, and it will be completely wireless.
In the single specific definition of the "serverless" architecture, there is very much a server (and more than likely several), and without that server, you have nothing.
> I honestly think that serverless is a lot less ambiguous and misleading than something like "cloud" which is completely abstract.
With terms like Cloud, the term has actual technical background. Network diagrams often include a "cloud" component, which literally signifies something you don't control, usually a WAN/internet connection. See for example, this diagram with reference to a local IPX network (the page it's from isn't in English but references 1996): http://soback.kornet.net/~silicon/network/Tunneling.files/im...
Yes, the term has been expanded upon but there is still a basis of the same concept in its use: something you just use, you don't manage/control.
"Serverless" is a technically incorrect and very misleading term. The term would be better applied to something like HTML/JS Single-Page Apps that use things like offline storage/etc to allow truly offline browser based apps.
I am sure people have said this but it's "serverless" from the perspective of the user (who is a developer in this case). The developer doesn't have to deal with servers/infrastructure so for them the system is serverless.
I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there.
I honestly think that serverless is a lot less ambiguous and misleading than something like "cloud" which is completely abstract.
If you think "serverless" is not confusing, then you have lost the vocabulary to even describe apps that run truly without servers: Photoshop, Word, tons of games, etc.
By your "wireless" analogy I think you view these apps to be absurd impossibilities, like electronics without wires.
This distinction is important. SimCity 5 gratuitously required the user to be constantly online, talking to some server. I mean obviously - there has to be a server somewhere, right?
No, there does not!! We need to retain the ability to talk about apps that do not need ANY server, and "serverless" muddies that crucial distinction.
I've heard the analagy used that "Servers are to Serverless what wires are to wireless", the main point being that they're still there, but they're no longer something you manage or directly interact with.
I'm also starting to see the term LaaS (Logic as a Service) used as an alternative to "Serverless" here and there.
> My dog doesn't need a wire for anything, but no-one talks about them being 'wireless'.
Indeed :-) But isn't this the same sort of definition you want for "serverless"? Not something relevant to consumers (e.g. "you don't manage servers") but a description of something where servers are not involved in any way?
That's not how the term serverless is being used most places. See first comment I made. It's not being without server. It's about not thinking about the server.
reply