'Serverless' as currently jargoned is used to connote that the developer does not have to think about servers (or VM's or containers) directly. The 'serverless' buzzword does not mean that there are not servers somewhere doing useful work.

Exactly, added a small piece of text to the README about this today: https://github.com/serverless/serverless/#why-serverless

Sorry, can you elaborate in which way this is "does not have to think about servers"? Because almost the first thing on their tutorial is some messing around with AWS.

Serverless is really just an a community term for 'function as a service'. There are servers... you just upload discrete bits of code to the platform which executes them on demand.

A small point, but they look to at least consider other non-AWS providers (e.g. Azure) per their note here: https://serverless.com/framework/docs/guide/installing-serve...

There are pull-requests open which enable the framework to be used with Azure or IBM BlueMix OpenWhisk

Hmm if I recall they had logos of azure, ibm whisk, and google cloud fns in their project. Seems those logos have recently been removed. Is this indicative of the future of this project, leaning towards AWS lock-in?

Absolutely not. We definitely want to support all of those providers, but as those integrations aren't in the Framework yet we decided to remove the logos until we actually support them.

Not just because users want those, but for us its important to become more provider independent as we don't otherwise have a defensible product. So multi-provider is definitely coming and we're in constant contact with many providers.