SQLite was already serverless.
Yes but now it runs on someone else server! Wait a minute, this makes no sense...
'serverless' is perhaps the stupidest marketing buzzword developers have come up with.
Managed service
"Don't care where it runs, don't want to manage it, I want to pay only for when I actually use it, thanks for managing it, here's some extra cash for the effort"
But you can only apply that metric if you remove the end users from actually touching the machines (virtual or real).
This is the "less" in serverless.
Turns out that this is also something people want: not having to be on the hook for actually administering machines, installing security patches etc etc.
So managed (platform as a) service + fine grained billing
Catchy like vagrant but perhaps a bit insensitive (unless it was used to highlight the plight of the homeless).
Less catchy - Poste Restante or General Delivery
> Recently, folks have begun to use the word "serverless" to mean something subtly different from its intended meaning in this document. Here are two possible definitions of "serverless": Classic Serverless: [...] Neo-Serverless: [...]
SQLite was already "Classic Serverless". Now it's "Neo Serverless" as well.