It's deffinately not the perfect file server. From using usb drives, 15 year old atom CPU, 2gb of ram and raid 5 for the drives... Just some of the reasons.
Granted, yes, the author should have chosen a more specific and less clickbaity title. But titles need to be short and pithy when dealing with the goldfish attention spans many people have.
So a better, more accurate title could be,
>“The perfect low-cost/no-cost file server utilizing old/upcycled and possibly obsolete hardware”
Except that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue with aplomb.
