This article is mostly FUD I think.<p>It comes off as a slew of strawmen arguments ... for example the idea that unikernels are defined as applications that run in &quot;ring 0&quot; of the microprocessor... and that the primary reason is for performance...<p>All of the unikernel implementations he mentioned (mirageos, osv, rumpkernels) all run on top of some other hardware abstraction (xen, posix, etc) with perhaps the exception of a &quot;bmk&quot; rumpkernel.<p>We currently have a situation in &quot;the cloud&quot; where we have applications running on top of a hardware abstraction layer (a monolithic kernel) running on top of another hardware abstraction layer (a hypervisor).  Unikernels provide a (currently niche) solution for eliminating some of the 1e6+ lines of monolithic kernel code that individual applications don&#x27;t need and introduce performance and security problems.  To dismiss this is as &quot;unfit for production&quot; is somewhat specious.<p>I wonder if Joyent might have a vested interest in spreading FUD around unikernels and their usefulness.