&quot;I think Bryan Cantrill is referring to both STM and M:N in the context of high performance applications (aka, the norm for him, since he&#x27;s a kernel engineer). In that sense, both of them do have problems.&quot;<p>&quot;Honestly, I think your comments about M:N and STM are more revealing of your ignorance rather that Cantrill&#x27;s.&quot;<p>Probably was. Idk who he is or what he does. I&#x27;m aware there were fads to claim the two could solve every problem under the Sun in their category. I&#x27;m one of those few that ignore fads to focus on any lessons we can learn from certain tech or research. He made a blanket assertion against at least three technologies in one article with no context. Anyone reading might think the techs don&#x27;t work well in any context. So, I briefly called that.<p>As evidence, I gave an example of STM that worked. In OS&#x27;s, it had mixed results unless hardware accelerated and one typically had to protect I&#x2F;O stuff with locks due to irreversibility. Far as M:N, only found OS use for it in security kernels (eg GEMSOS) to help supress covert, timing channels. Didn&#x27;t expect him to know that use-case, though, since the cloud products are usually full of covert channels. And then there&#x27;s MirageOS on unikernel end using type- and memory-safety for robust, network applications already showing fewer 0-days than alternatives did.<p>So, all three already have real-world, beneficial use. Quite the opposite of his claim that leads one to believe that never happens.<p>&quot;Sweepingly calling his stance &quot;full of crap&quot; says a thing or two.&quot;<p>In other comments, I did present data and specific examples to reject his claims about UNIX being a usable foundation for this sort of thing among others. His approach to such things was to ignore all counter evidence and&#x2F;or leave the discussion. Eventually, a new article shows him making an adverti... err, a bunch of claims, some backed up and some assertions, about all kinds of tech in an anti-unikernel rant.<p>Strange that you&#x27;re fine with him ignoring his critic&#x27;s counterpoints... with references... to his major claims but have trouble with how I handle minor, tangential ones. Says a thing or two indeed.