I was disappointed that this article didn't have anything about traffic but speculation. I expected it because of the title. There's no point to me in how many static sites it can host if traffic isn't taken into account. As jonknee said, it could host 10,000 low-traffic sites.
I also looked up the VPS mentioned in the article, and noted that it's not really that cheap. There's only two price levels below $20, and $20/mo for 256MB isn't great. I got a tax-day special on Zerigo that amounts to about $20/mo for 640MB, and RackSpace Cloud has 512MB for $21.90/mo. The author of the article also mentioned getting a billing issue resolved, and I expect not to have any billing issues in the first place for web hosting. I'm more willing to give other types of services some slack but I think hosting companies ought to have this one figured out.
Sounds a lot like my thoughts on hosting. To me, a good provider isn't necessarily the one with the best 2-second-reply support. To me, it's the provider where unless you're running a really high traffic complex site you pretty much never need to contact support. For instance, having to contact support rather than pressing a cancel button is something of a red flag for me.
Yes, I'm not affiliated with them at all; I just found the deal on LEB and opened a server and I just thought the price was fantastic for 1GB of RAM. In fact, it's the cheapest 1GB of RAM I've ever seen. I think they can manage it because they use Hyper-V dynamic RAM allocation. I've never seen that in practice, it's really interesting to see. A kernel driver actually sucks up the extra RAM you're not using if it's needed somewhere else.