There are many apps that have "no server anywhere." For example I have a purely offline chess app. This chess app is not "serverless", because it does not use any FAAS interfaces.

It's absurd that such an app is not considered serverless precisely because it doesn't actually use a server.

Non technical people?

If you want to dismiss the literal issue, that means the name is meaningless. It might as well be called Daffy Duck.

I agree with you, but if the point is to help non technical people I'm not sure Functions as a Service is any better.

"X as a Service" is a common enough term that someone is more likely to have heard it before, and it accurately describes what it is (if the X is accurate).

"Serverless" is deliberately wrong and misleading.

One of those stupid "entire website in a page" would be a better fit for "server less" because technically the logic is all client side.

At least it's clear that it depends on a service, with all that entails.

And wires are still involved with wireless networking, but people are somehow more forgiving of that. People are just being pedantic for no good reason.

> And wires are still involved with wireless networking, but people are somehow more forgiving of that.

not between 2 wireless endpoints, there are no wires. Between you and what you call "serveless" there is a server you need to query to get the result of whatever program you executed remotely. There is no wire between my router and my laptop.

Pedantic and useless. Thanks for proving my point.