|
Lopatir wrote: but anyway there is such a thing as serverless without servers, pretty much anything designed as a single connection point-to-point
Right, but they couldn't make up a new term for that since they already have "peer-to-peer".
They had to invent a new technology ala serverless. 
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience, what is passed off as "new technology" is often just the same old stuff with a different name.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of like how "microservices" is really just separation of concerns?
|
|
|
|
|
LOL. I've spent a lot of time trying to be wowed by microseconds. I've not succeeded.
|
|
|
|
|
Try walking into a company that is using them a lot for years with no idea how to actually use them and then try to sort through the mess.
Then you will experience a "wow" moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marketing morons and salesmen are usually of the type that doesn't understand a damned thing about technology, but can talk bollocks about sport with customers till the cows come home.
So you need sports analogies, to get technical points across.
Try
"Do you think it would be possible to have serverless tennis, you **cking moron? The ball has to come from somewhere!"
Catch
The penny, as it drops.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's really very cool technology though...
I've written about it and I'm planning on doing a presentation at my company later this year.
With serverless I can finally host my websites and databases without needing my own physical server or a system admin for that matter.
In that sense the word isn't even completely wrong, as far as I'm concerned there are no servers to worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: as far as I'm concerned there are no servers to worry about.
I don't worry about gravity on a regular basis.
Does that mean I am gravityless? 
modified 3-Jan-19 8:06am.
|
|
|
|
|
"as far as I am concerned there are no servers to worry about"
and therein lies the problem. This thread explicitly lays the blame for the misinformation the 'serverless' term conveys at the feet of marketing. That much is a no-brainer. The real problem, as I see it, is the falsehood the quote conveys. There is plenty of reason to be wary of servers, server farms and data centers in general: lack of real data security, ownership and privacy, not to mention lack of inherent scalability. Let's see what happens when IoT blows up internet usage by a factor or 10 to 100 or more. I'm sure hierarchical providers will come up with stop-gap measures, but you can be assured they won't be real serverless solutions.
For a real serverless archecture see www.hiveware.com.
|
|
|
|
|
Only in space 
|
|
|
|
|
But isn't your computer the server, then?
|
|
|
|
|
No, the server is somewhere in some data center out of my control.
My computer is only used for development.
|
|
|
|
|
The only way I am going to keep my self sane on this is separating out "Server" the hardware and server software.
MS SQL Server is not a Server.
You will want to run that in Windows Server, which also is not a Server, but make sure you provision and heft Server to run that on. You would run SQL Server on a desktop, but a Server would be better.
|
|
|
|
|
maze3 wrote: The only way I am going to keep my self sane on this is separating out "Server" the hardware and server software.
That's a good point.
And it is interesting that the word "server" is so ambiguous. Well, so many things in IT are ambiguous really. It's why so many people have the same titles but do entirely different things at different companies.
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Serverless means that the developers can do their work without having to worry about servers at all.
I've never worked at a company that provided servers while I worked. Would be nice. 
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: I've never worked at a company that provided servers while I worked. Would be nice.
A very good point. Have to hope for the hardware and then if you get it you have to beg for admin rights.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to be annoyed by the term 'serverless' until I stopped thinking of it as a description of the underlying technology, and started thinking of it as a description of the billing model. I don't have to care if it's running on a server, or a potato, or a kitten, as long as I'm always billed the same amount for the normalized amount of computing resources I've consumed.
Overall, instead of 'serverless', I prefer Functions as as Service (FaaS). That gives a decent idea of what to expect, and gives a relatively easy way to compare it against IaaS (like EC2 and other bits of AWS) and PaaS (Like Azure App Service and Google App Engine).
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan Peden wrote: I prefer Functions as as Service (FaaS).
I agree with you and I think your naming is much better. The whole issue was that I came across this serverless term and thought, "Hmm...is this a PWA (Progressive Web App) of some sort? Something just running on client?"
Words are important!
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't it new entrant walterhevedeich that won it before Christmas?
|
|
|
|
|
It was: @walterhevedeich
I think he forgot ... he can be up tomorrow then ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
So I have two VirtualBox VMs - one is Lubuntu 18.04, and one is Win7. Both VMs are configured to use the bridged network adapter setting on the same host adapter. Up until Saturday (the last time I used it before I discovered the problem), the Win7 one was working fine (I could see the network shares and the host machine). When I went to use it again on Monday, neither the host machine nor the network shares are showing up in Windows Explorer. The Lubuntu VM still sees the host and network shares.
The only thing I can think of that could possibly have broken the Win7 VM is that I applied updates after I was done using it. However, there were no hardware driver updates performed (in fact my network adapter driver date is May 2008). Before I go through the hassle of rolling back the updates, has anyone else seen this kind of VirtualBox VM networking weirdness? I don't think the problem is with VirtualBox itself because the Lubuntu VM is still working fine.
When I do an IPCONFIG /ALL command in the Win7 VM, there is no default gateway listed, and the IP is some random value. I also cannot ping ANY machine on the local network. As you might guess, I also don't have internet access from the VM.
I posted a message on the VirtualBox community forums, but I figured I'd hit y'all up as well.
In the interest of completeness of info, it's VirtualBox v5.22 pulled from the Ubuntu repositories.
I'm considering updating VirtualBox to the freshly released 6.0, but I don't really want to add yet one more unknown to the current problem.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll give that a shot when I get home. If that works, I might even create a batch file to run when it breaks again. 
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
