• @SkyeStarfall
    link
    40
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Serverless sounds like a terrible name for this lmao.

    Why not remote functions or something like that.

    • @0xD@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      228 months 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.

      • @DrM@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        148 months 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

        • @dan@upvote.au
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          8 months 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

          • @DrM@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            78 months 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”?