[ImPostingOnHN]

Calling a piece of hardware a server is indeed the same as saying the hardware is server grade, whatever that may mean (if it doesn't meet the grade to be used for servers, whatever that grade might be, logically you shouldn't call it one). Otherwise, every computer is a server, making the term "server" extraneous. It isn't extraneous, though, therefore server and computer must not mean exactly the same thing.

One could also argue this isn't a server because it isn't serving anything, it's just a powered down computer in a cardboard box in a warehouse, waiting for you to order it and tell it what to do, like any other computer (maybe you want it to serve stuff, maybe not).

[viraptor]

This is effectively a prescriptive vs descriptive language issue. And prescriptive side always loses, because the people adjust the word meaning for a reason.

The expected usage here is: This device goes under the desk / into some closet, runs headless, runs 24/7 and provides some services on the network. It's a server. That's how people use this word these days, RPi is a server device too. (See /r/selfhosted)

[ImPostingOnHN]

Fortunately, descriptivism doesn't "win" (what does that even mean in a discussion about both how things are and how they should be?), but if it did, the computer in question still wouldn't be called a server, because that isn't what most people would call it. Only the manufacturers and a select few techies would call it a server.

> The expected usage here is: This device goes under the desk / into some closet, runs headless, runs 24/7 and provides some services on the network.

The same is true of many configurations of home computers, yet the hardware isn't called* "server" hardware, and they aren't called* "servers" either, unless they're actually serving something. When you buy it at the store, it's just called a computer.

*: 'not called' as in, most people don't call it that, so descriptivist, and they shouldn't, so prescriptivist, too