> Do you account into this TCO the time spent in retraining an gaining operational, production grade experience with serverless for all the teams involved?
Hopefully, or else it wouldn't be a total cost of ownership!
> And laying off perfectly capable employees because they are now redundant because serverless has a cost too (financial and emotional)
No doubt. But if your capable employees aren't providing value outside of "keeping the servers humming" there's a very good chance that someone is counting up their fully loaded cost and comparing it to bids from Accenture, Capgemini or Infosys.
I'm fairly ambivalent on the whole push towards serverless but arguments like this feel an awful lot like the pushback against virtualization vs. running bare metal.
> No doubt. But if your capable employees aren't providing value outside of "keeping the servers humming"
But you would usually consider serverless to need less people to manage it. So, even if they all work hard, someone will be not that useful one day or another.
Anyway I really don't see all this fuss about doing more with less (or doing more with the same) going serverless if you are already using infra as code and have a 100% automated CD/CI pipeline.
A greenfield project? Totally! But in an established org with good practices? Dunno.
Hopefully, or else it wouldn't be a total cost of ownership!
> And laying off perfectly capable employees because they are now redundant because serverless has a cost too (financial and emotional)
No doubt. But if your capable employees aren't providing value outside of "keeping the servers humming" there's a very good chance that someone is counting up their fully loaded cost and comparing it to bids from Accenture, Capgemini or Infosys.
I'm fairly ambivalent on the whole push towards serverless but arguments like this feel an awful lot like the pushback against virtualization vs. running bare metal.