On "Thinking Peer to Peer" and serverless

[ricardojmendez]

Some notes below on Thinking Peer To Peer. I'll be happy to submit PRs for both suggestions below, but would rather first get a discussion on wording/phrasing going on when it comes to serverless.

The current version states:

This term was coined to popularize the idea of writing code that can then be run, at a cost, on a "Function-as-a-Service" platform that all of the major cloud providers run.

I'd say this isn't explicit or clear enough, given that:

• All cloud providers are run at a cost,
• Most serverless implementations aren't portable, which the closing section of that paragraph could be misread as.

I'd suggest rephrasing as:

This term was coined to popularize the idea of writing code that can then be run on a "Function-as-a-Service" platform, without any a-priori server set up or configuration, and without on-going costs beyond the immediate execution.

The explanation then moves on to say:

However, the common criticism is that this is just "somebody else's server," and it's true.

I've never heard this criticism. This seems like a misquoting of the adage "there's no cloud, just someone else's computer".

It might be better to rewrite to indicate how it's explicitly a misnomer.

[aphelionz]

Hi Ricardo, thanks for the feedback! I'd be happy to accept a PR with those changes. If you want to add the bit about how my quote is a paraphrase, I'd welcome that too.