[dragonwriter]

> I think it's due to the fact that the terminology seems intentionally misleading at worst, and like a marketing buzzword at best.

Originally it was a marketing buzzowrd designed to make Amazon's FaaS offering seem like a bigger deal than it was, and somewhat misleading in that role because FaaS of the type it was applied to aren't any more serverless (even from the perspective of what the customer needs to manage) than common PaaS offerings.

OTOH, I kind of like the way Google seems to have adopted it as a blanket term for cloud services where the customer is not concerned with physical or virtual servers as such; it seems the term.is being wrestled into being descriptive and non-deceptive.

> Every technical person understands there's still a server there. So it seems like a marketing tactic intent on misleading clueless CEOs.

The non-existence of servers isn't what it communicates, only technical people who also lack any sense of what matters to business world think that. (It's also targeted more to CTOs/CIOs than CEOs).