Not an expert here, but it seems to me like unikernel is the latest buzzword. The alleged advantages are: > Improved security: only the core of the OS is imple

Not an expert here, but it seems to me like unikernel is the latest buzzword. The alleged advantages are: > Improved security: only the core of the OS is implemented, no video or USB drivers that aren't needed and could be a source of intrusion. I am not aware of any video or USB driver vulnerability which led to security concerns on a typical server setup in the last decade. > Very small footprint: imagine being able to remove 95% of the kernel size, simply because your application doesn't need it. This may free up 1 MB of RAM or maybe two. Unrelevant unless you're doing embedded programming, which is not the environment unikernels are targeting. > Specialised implementations: you know your application and you can tweak and run your kernel exactly the way you want it. Too vague of a statement to even criticize, anyway my applications conform to the POSIX specification so that they are portable and run exactly the way I want them. > Quick enough to be "Just in time" to summon a unikernel live (similar to live spawning Docker instances), with boot times less than 1 second. This may be a fair point in a system where the deployment time of a new instance is critical.