I did, and I stand by what I wrote: the product is bad, no matter how you slice it and dice it! But to label a generalized categorization based on anecdotal yet empirical experiments as ad hominem is outrageous. In my view, that is wanton abuse on equal grounds with censorship and other repressive measures, just because someone on the Internet doesn't like what someone else on the Internet wrote.
Lots of people don't like auto transmissions, and that's fine. Just chill about it.
That is a very personal issue for me, because driving is a physical and mental activity that I undertake intensely every day, and take it way more seriously than the average person. If I could chill about it, I would not have commented in the first place. But if one does not report what's broken, it will never get fixed:
"we can't fix it if we don't know it's broken."
Now, I don't mind having that choice, but when it means that it messes with my capability to choose a manual, because none is offered, that is where I have a major problem. If people want to drive automatics, I don't like it, but it's their choice and in general I don't care, as long as I can have my choice available, a manual. Live and let live. However, the situation is not developing in that direction, quite the opposite.
You can easily have embedded systems with no kernel to speak of.
Any firmware is an unikernel unless it is running as a generic operating system with generic processes and running multiple, distinct applications, or capable or running more than one single application. Otherwise, if the firmware is one single image running as one single monolithic body of code, they are one and the same. BIOS firmware, for example, is a unikernel. OpenBoot PROM is a unikernel. ECU firmware is a unikernel.
It may be a unikernel, but since you're possibly under NDA you're not saying that, are you?
Okay, you got me. I may not say anything. Well played, well played, I salute you.
You literally said it's due to developers' dim opinions. Lots of people don't like auto transmissions, and that's fine. Just chill about it.
> you know that all such source code is under strict non-disclosure agreements
Nope. Are you saying that all such code is under strict NDA? Likely, you can still say you signed one and cannot talk about it if that's the case.
> I wouldn't be at liberty to discuss or cite
As in, you cannot link to an existing, public article that supports what you're talking about? I call BS.
> any firmware or subsystem concerned with one task - such as running a vehicle - is by definition a unikernel
That's not a definition of a unikernel. You can easily have embedded systems with no kernel to speak of. It may be a unikernel, but since you're possibly under NDA you're not saying that, are you?
> Finally, as a firmware writer, please explain to me...
I'm not a the author of those systems, therefore I will not make assumptions about them. And I recommend the same to you.
What you're describing is behaviour and sure - they may behave like this for some reason. Blaming that on a specific part of the system, or technology, or developers that are dim and do stuff without a reason, without a good proof is neither useful nor helpful.