3 ms·

I think there isn't a compelling reason - For the sake of argument lets just say there is a difference in overall system performance - lets say 20% for a worklo

I think there isn't a compelling reason - For the sake of argument lets just say there is a difference in overall system performance - lets say 20% for a workload you care about. you get to change your tooling. I think the unikernel tooling for building deployable images is/could be superior, but its different. your service is now running as it did before, but you've also taken a whole lot of risk onboard that this experimental operating system used by a few tens of people around the world isn't going to cause problems for you. that there wont be some library you want to use that isn't supported. if your job is to prop up microservices or run websites, I dont see why you would do this unless you were really that bored and had no sense of responsibility.

TechBro8615 5y ago
Tooling is really the chicken/egg problem of ecosystems. Good tools come from the best devs, who have a higher chance of existing in big, active ecosystems. But most devs won’t join an ecosystem if it doesn’t have good tooling, so how can it become big and active? An ecosystem needs its early adopters to be excellent devs, so the early community has a high concentration of them and therefore greater probability of developing good tools that will attract a wider audience. That’s why I wouldn’t give up quite yet on unikernels. There are a lot of really smart people working on them. What the unikernel ecosystem needs is a “killer app” to demonstrate a flagship use case. I used to think Fly.io could do that, but they seem to have settled on Firecracker (as has Amazon, tbf). Whatever happened to the team behind the unikernel company acquired by Docker?