Cool (and congrats on the demo)! Sounds like a promising approach. I work on browser use agents and one of the most difficult problems now is bot detection. Curious if you know how this impacts bot detection/fingerprinting?
Why detect "bots" when you can block them using captchas/proof-of-work solutions. Curious to know your use case for detecting bots.
Show HN: We Put Chromium on a Unikernel (OSS Apache 2.0)
41–47 of 47 posts
Re: Show HN: We Put Chromium on a Unikernel (OSS Apache 2.0)
#42Re: Show HN: We Put Chromium on a Unikernel (OSS Apache 2.0)
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you, I appreciate that! I actually agonized over whether to include this particular one-liner, because of the risk of perceived self-promotion. In the end I decided to include it, because I actually used it, and I found it actually useful for anyone who wants to try Kernel with a one-liner. I made sure to not include a link to my project, to keep my karma in balance :) I've been a fan of unikernels for a long t…
Except in this case they are just running a linux payload - that which pretty much any firecracker provider could do.
Re: Show HN: We Put Chromium on a Unikernel (OSS Apache 2.0)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just wanna say the Dagger shell syntax is incredibly cool and I look forward to playing with it. I would not complain if you posted such self-promotional comments on any thread where it’s relevant because it goes to show the flexibility of the thing. I saw your announcement post / many contentious HN comments, but wanted to chime in here with a supportive take, because I think time will reveal this design to be ver…
Thank you, I appreciate that! I actually agonized over whether to include this particular one-liner, because of the risk of perceived self-promotion. In the end I decided to include it, because I actually used it, and I found it actually useful for anyone who wants to try Kernel with a one-liner. I made sure to not include a link to my project, to keep my karma in balance :) I've been a fan of unikernels for a long t…
> I'm surprised the unikernel community hasn't focused on this application sooner.
There just wasn’t a compelling usecase before agents to need a serverless browser. And Chromium is basically an OS-in-a-box already, and Unikraft has now matured enough to supply the unikernel scaffolding to link it all together (coordinated by Dagger, it seems!)
Re: Show HN: We Put Chromium on a Unikernel (OSS Apache 2.0)
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
why is the price bracket so weird? pro/10 gives each user less than half what individual plans would. It's almost like an attempt to dissuade pro purchases. Are there additional tooling you are not mentioning in the comparison?
Are you referring to Unikraft Cloud's pricing? I'm not really sure, since I'm not affiliated. Maybe they'll chime in
Re: Show HN: We Put Chromium on a Unikernel (OSS Apache 2.0)
#46Re: Show HN: We Put Chromium on a Unikernel (OSS Apache 2.0)
#47(OP) Happy to answer any questions! Some things we're still exploring: - Mounting persistent storage for file i/o - Replacing noVNC with a faster alternative Would love feedback, especially if you’ve worked on fast-cold-start systems or unikernel-based infra.
How does fast-cold-start help here? What use cases did it enable that were previously not possible with a warm pool of Docker containers?