> It’s the packaging and how it sits in their serverless world. [...] As someone who sometimes needs a table here snd there, I really, really don’t want a server. I want a table to store a thousand records in and that’s it.
Sorry, but I don't get it -- WTF does "serverless" even mean here?
I mean, sorry for jumping on your comment specifically, I know that wasn't primarily what you were talking about here, but... You seem to know what you're talking about, effortlessly encompassing "their serverless world" etc.
The article even mentions that <<SQLite was so ahead of its time, it dubbed itself “serverless” before the term gained connotation with cloud services, and originally meant literally “not involving a server”.>> That makes sense to me; "serverless" means "not having a server". So then you have a local DB; be it SQLite or a DBF or Paradox or MS Access file or whatever. Or even a local DB software "service"; Firebird or MySQL or what have you.
But the term, as it's been bandied about online for the last decade(?) or so (including in this article), seems to pretty obviously actually be about... Remote servers (that's what it talks about replicating between, right?). So what's "serverless" about that???
I've been wondering for a good while now. Anyone who has a short explanation, or link to such, please jump in and enlighten me.
(Otherwise I'll have to conclude it's like "the Cloud", a.k.a. "Someone else's computer". "Serverless" = Someone else's server? :-)
[Edit: Typo.] [Edit: Sigh... Two of them.]