|
|
|
|
|
by SoftwareMaven
3796 days ago
|
|
That's because his argument is orthogonal to the performance and security arguments. His argument is basically even if unikernels are faster and even if they are just as secure, they are still operationally broken because you cannot debug them. He doesn't need to present a great argument against security or performance. There doesn't even need to be such an argument. If you've ever spent six months trying to find out why a content management system blows up under the strangest of conditions, even when you have a full debug stack, you understand why that argument may be able to stand alone. The place where his argument falls down, IMO, is, like others have said, in assuming that everything is binary: everything is unikernel or it is not. And that's just silly. |
|
I personally agree that this would be a stronger argument, but unfortunately it's not the argument he's making. Instead, he's "pleading in the alternative", which is less logical, but can in some situations can be more effective. The classic example is from a legendary defense lawyer nicknamed "Racehorse" Haynes:
“Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you,” he told the audience. “Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn’t bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don’t believe you really got bit.” His final defense, he said, would be: “I don’t have a dog.”
It maps excellently: "As everyone knows, unikernels never have a performance advantage. And even when they are faster, they are always terribly insecure. And even after people solve the security nightmare, they're still impossible to debug. But what's the point in spending time talking about something that doesn't even exist!"
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/richard_racehorse...