Interesting, but I’m not convinced.<p>Size: Each unikernel image contains a kernel specially compiled for the application. A container image properly optimized contains just the application (the kernel is shared by all containers). It’s possible to create Docker containers under 10 MB: see <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.xebia.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;04&#x2F;create-the-smallest-possible-docker-container&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.xebia.com&#x2F;2014&#x2F;07&#x2F;04&#x2F;create-the-smallest-possibl...</a> and <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.xebia.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;30&#x2F;how-to-create-the-smallest-possible-docker-container-of-any-image&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.xebia.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;30&#x2F;how-to-create-the-smallest-...</a>.<p>Security: Reusing a well known and largely deployed Linux kernel (without all the surrounding provided by the “larger” OS) sounds at least as secure as compiling its own specialized unikernel.<p>Compatibility: The compatibility story sounds better for containers because your app will work by default without doing anything.