Unikernels simply redraw abstraction boundaries. You can still use libraries and third-party code to implement common primitives. In fact, that's exactly what many unikernel frameworks give you (unikraft, hermit, mirage)
Are their abstraction boundaries protected by virtual memory and syscall interface such the submodules of a program cannot corrupt parts of memory that belong to others? Can I restart subtasks without affecting others? A traditional OS gives me all of that with relatively minimal overhead.
With a capability-based microkernel you get to assign ownership and resources to a very granular level that increases robustness against crashes and protection against attacks to the core system policy. A unikernel can give all of that but I feel like then it will be worse to program against rather than a microkernel.
So overall I don't see any advantage of unikernels. They don't help you write more correct programs IMO and the performance gains are limited.
With a capability-based microkernel you get to assign ownership and resources to a very granular level that increases robustness against crashes and protection against attacks to the core system policy. A unikernel can give all of that but I feel like then it will be worse to program against rather than a microkernel.
So overall I don't see any advantage of unikernels. They don't help you write more correct programs IMO and the performance gains are limited.