IT is a strange series of back and fourth. At work, we’re seeing more and more monolith applications/serveres/infrastructure, because the power of a single box is nearing what entire environments could deliver just a few years ago, while simultaneously eliminating a lot of overhead.
I agree with you though, storage servers do storage tasks - and no more.
It’s strange, mr. rabbit, it’s not often you encounter another person, in this case a cat-faced user on an obscure online forum, with whom you have great respect for both their knowledge and standpoints, but sincerely cannot figure out if you agree with to a point of worship or disagree with to the point of war.
You raise a lot of completely bulletproof points, which isolated makes so much sense, and outside of that sphere I could not disagree with more.
Because you’re right enterprise storage should be run on enterprise hardware. Storages boxses should manage one thing - storage - and let applications severs handle the rest. Applying the Unix philosophy to infrastructure just makes sense, but then again, I totally see the appeal of a four bay Synology box, running the entire selfhosted part of a home.
I would love for all things to be done 
The Most Correct way in all areas, but time and time again, I see convenience beat just about every other opponent.
I’d love to get a beer with you one day, and disagree about everything
Eh, between enterprise and home users there’s also another segment of small offices and small businesses, for which running a small office-related application is not worth running a whole separate computer. For example I recall one of my previous offices running a security camera tool this way. That’s where appliances produced by Synology or QNAP win market share now (obviously not enterprise—is Netapp still strong there?).
Though, I agree that cannibalizing resources used for developing the FreeBSD version, with established market presence, to develop something pretty much from scratch is strange. It looks like a thing you should never do.