the guy says he's not an idiot then brags about spending $30 per month on a VPS (idiot),
You can always go with cheap, fully virtualized GNU/Linux server, or you can go with a virtual, true UNIX server running at the speed of bare metal[1].
Your choice, but quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance still cost something. It you don't care about any of those things, fork out $5 for the alternative and call it a day.
Not disrespecting your opinion here, but $5 Digital Ocean droplets[1] have been working quite well for me as well as for nearly two dozens of my clients, spanning across the last several years (taking into account all the four important parameters you've specified: quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance).
My (limited) experience with Vultr[2] has also been fairly satisfactory.
As far as I am aware, Digital Ocean is running on Linux, and because Linux requires turning off memory overcommit and integrating ZFS on Linux, at a minimum, there is no correctness of operation. As there is no fault management architecture (like fmadm), and support for debugging the kernel and binaries is incomplete (no mdb, no kernel debug mode, no kdb, incomplete DWARF support), there really can be no assertion about correctness of operation.
Correctness of operation does not only refer to end-to-end data integrity, but also to adequate capability to diagnose and inspect system state, in addition to being able to deliver correct output in face of severe software or hardware failures. Linux is out as far as all of those.
In other words, if you want JustWorks(SM), rock solid substrate for (web)applications, anybody not running on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or some illumos derivative like SmartOS is out, at least for me. Perhaps your deployment is different, but I don't want to have to wake up in the middle of the night. I want for the OS to continue working correctly even if hardware underneath is busted, so I can deal with it on my own schedule, and not that of managers'.
As a reality check, we're talking simple (and even not-so-simple) web site/app hosting options here (and not some NASA/space/military/healthcare grade requirements).
From my perspective (as a freelance web tech/dev professional who routinely manages close to two dozen hosting accounts for clients), what you're saying above comes very very close to driving a nail with a sledgehammer.
That would only hold true if your or my time were worthless, or had a very low valuation.
Hosting clientele is notoriously high maintenance; the more technology ignorant, the higher the maintenance in terms of support, and the more fallout one has to deal with when there is downtime.
My time is expensive. My free time is exorbitantly expensive. Therefore, when I pick a solution and decide to deploy on it, it has to be as much "fire-and-forget" as is possible. Picking a bulletproof substrate to offer my services on also increases the time available to provide higher quality service to my clients: since my time dealing with basic infrastructure is reduced as much as possible, I have more of it to spend on providing better service and adding value, thereby increasing the client retention rate. Because of the economy involved in this, and especially considering how razor thin hosting margins are, I feel that the nail with a sledgehammer metaphor is inapplicable to this scenario.
You can always go with cheap, fully virtualized GNU/Linux server, or you can go with a virtual, true UNIX server running at the speed of bare metal[1].
Your choice, but quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance still cost something. It you don't care about any of those things, fork out $5 for the alternative and call it a day.
[1] http://www.joyent.com/