[kragen]

This is great, thanks for digging it up!

It does support the thesis that Amazon was attempting to prevent customers from realizing that what they were offering was basically CGI on a big load-balanced server farm, by claiming that it was something radically new that you couldn't get before, but their value proposition is still just the value proposition of shared CGI hosting. On a big load-balanced server farm. Which, to be perfectly fair, probably was bigger than anyone else's.

There is one major difference—the accounting, where you get charged by the megabyte-millisecond or whatever. Service bureaus ("cloud computing vendors") in the 01960s did do such billing, but Linux shared CGI hosts in the 01990s generally didn't; accton(8) doesn't record good enough information for such things. While in some sense that's really the value proposition for Amazon rather than the customer, it gives customers some confidence that their site isn't going to go down because a sysadmin decided they were being a CPU hog.

I agree that there's no evidence that they were talking about "servers" in the sense of processes that listen on a socket, rather than "servers" in the sense of computers that those processes run on.

Just to be clear, I know I'm not going to convince you of anything, but I'm really appreciating how much better informed I'm becoming because of this conversation!

[jchw]

> It does support the thesis that Amazon was attempting to prevent customers from realizing that what they were offering was basically CGI on a big load-balanced server farm, by claiming that it was something radically new that you couldn't get before, but their value proposition is still just the value proposition of shared CGI hosting. On a big load-balanced server farm. Which, to be perfectly fair, probably was bigger than anyone else's.

I loathe to be of service defending Amazon's marketing BS, but I think you're saying the selling point of AWS Lambda is that it's "like CGI", and that serverless functions are substantially equivalent to CGI. I disagree. The programming model of serverless functions is definitely substantially equivalent to CGI, but the selling point of serverless functions isn't the "functions" part, it's the "serverless" part. It would've had the exact same draw and could've even had a very similar programming model (The Lambda SDK makes your applications look like a typical request handling server, probably for development purposes) and ran multi-request servers under the hood and as long as it had the same billing and management most people would've been happy with it. The thing that unites Fargate and Lambda in being "serverless" is the specific way they're abstracting infrastructure.

Amazon could've and could still launch something like CloudCGI if they wanted to, and if it used the same model as Lambda I'm sure it'd be successful. If I had to guess why they didn't, the less cynical answer is that they just felt it was outdated and wanted to make something new and shiny with a nice developer experience. The more cynical answer is probably truer, because vendor lock-in. Even if they did launch something like "CloudCGI" though, it would still be a very big departure from anything people called "CGI hosting".

[9rx]

> but the selling point of serverless functions isn't the "functions" part, it's the "serverless" part.

Yup. That's right. The removal of the server from your application is the selling point. As you subtly hint at, exposing the application as a "function" is a clever API design to facilitate that, but I'm sure you could imagine other ways to achieve the same. It is the "serverless" part that is significant.

HTTP servers, while simple to implement in terms of basic function, aren't easy to design well. There are a lot of more complex considerations, like around security and scaling, which are easy to screw up if you don't have a good handle on what you are doing. All alleviated by just letting someone else, who specializes in it, write the server code for you. If you take the server out of your application, making it "serverless", it becomes much more difficult (I really want to say impossible, but abstractions always leak eventually) to screw that end up.

Which is a very compelling business case, allowing businesses to hire people who aren't experts (read: cheaper) in the intricacies of low level technical details that are outside of their core business logic. That's the selling feature, just like you (and Amazon) say.

Glad we got away from that bizarre definition thinking that "serverless" somehow takes physical hardware out of the picture. Maybe it has also taken on that meaning (as nonsensical as that idea is) through the twisting in the popularity wind – definitions are most definitely influenced by time — but it certainly didn't originate in that vein.