• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    26
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Instead of spinning up a classical server like Apache or IIS for what you need, you just write a single function that you can bind to an endpoint and just host that - the rest is abstracted away from you.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      35
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Serverless sounds like a terrible name for this lmao.

      Why not remote functions or something like that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        221 year ago

        Marketing™️ I guess? :P

        But probably because YOU don’t have to fuck around with servers, for you it’s just an upload of a function.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          131 year ago

          I think that’s the main reason, it’s a good name explaining what you can expect: an environment where you don’t have to worry about servers and don’t need an administrator

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            9
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Why not just call it shared hosting though? It’s essentially the same concept as getting a GoDaddy (or Bluegost or whatever) hosting account and uploading a PHP file lol

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              71 year ago

              Shared hosting sounds like you don’t have your data stored privately and doesn’t sound like less work for the company.

              Don’t look at the name from a technicians perspective, but from the perspective of a manager of a small startup who wants to reduce the overhead for hosting it’s service as much as possible. Also serverless is not wrong per sé, it’s exactly what you as the customer get.

              You could spin it the same way for every other instance. Why do you call GoDaddy “shared hosting”, in the end it’s just a pod on a kubernetes cluster. So why don’t you call it “private kubernetes pod”?