The thing that always worries me about these clean-slate designs is the fear that they'll ignore accessibility for disabled people, e.g. blind people, and then either the system will remain inaccessible, or accessibility will have to be retrofitted later.
> RadiantOS treats your computer as an extension of your mind. It’s designed to capture your knowledge, habits, and workflows at the system layer. Data is interlinked like a personal wiki, not scattered across folders.
This sounded really interesting... till I read this:
> It’s an AI-native operating system. Artificial neural networks are built in and run locally. The OS understands what applications can do, what they expose, and how they fit together. It can integrate features automatically, without extra code. AI is used to extend your ability, help you understand the system and be your creative aid.
Looks like an experiment to me. Which is fine. Why not play around? A NN based computer is something people have been contemplating for awhile. Though it seems more like a solution looking for a problem to me ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯[0]
> what personal computing could be when designed from first principles.
Actually this bugs me more. I really dislike how frequently people claim "first principles". First principles are those that cannot be reduced. It's often used not in this way and all that accomplishes is people tricking themselves (or worse, tries to convince others) that these are the simplest components. We use first principles in subjects like math and physics but honestly 99.9% of what we work with in those domains are not through first principles. Maybe if you start with axioms in set theory or if you're in physics trying to derive a ToE (what those first principles are) then you're not down there.
It bugs me because deriving first principles is an extremely complicated task. Its also a very beneficial exercise, especially when trying to build things from the ground up. Constantly asking yourself how this can be broken down even more. First principles are not where you start. Having them should demonstrate a large amount of work having already been done and deep thought into what you're doing.
When clicking on that section I see nothing that looks like first principles. I see really a manifesto and much of which is actually difficult to distinguish from current computing.
It's a nice manifesto, but also seems too vague and naïve. Though the latter is generally a feature of manifestos, not exactly a fault
[0] to me, AI being built in should look more like AI being used like physics informed networks. Which are more using the NN for optimization. You could definitely abstract out more and this would be cool and interesting to see. But from the sound of it, it seems more like they're just putting LLMs in
Most importantly, unless they explicitly use "good" models trained on ethically-sourced data, their reliance on AI is fundamentally at odds with their mission of a "computing movement rooted in human dignity".
Other than the usual scepticism around AI, it seems like it goes in the complete opposite direction of what they're trying to do. It sounds like they want to rethink how computers should work right from the beginning, eg they dont ship with a web browser, presumably so developers can rethink what a web browser actually is/should be, which is all really cool.
But then to throw in "you know that thing thats built upon decades of pre-existing infrastructure and assumptions on how computing should work? Yeh thats there too" doesn't seem compatible with the above.
I don't understand why they're particular about writing their own esoteric language. If they want people to buy and engage with it, software has to be the gateway, and that's easier to write in a language people know.
> Computing machines are instruments of creativity, companions in learning, and partners in thought. They should amplify human intention.
An admirable goal. However putting that next to a bunch of AI slop artwork and this statement...
> One of our goals is to explore how an A.I.-native computer system can enhance the creative process, all while keeping data private.
...is comically out of touch.
The intersection between "I want simple and understandable computing systems" and "I want AI" is basically zero. (Yes, I'm sure some of you exist, my point is that you're combining a slim segment of users who want this approach to tech with another slim segment of users who want AI.)
Out of curiosity- there's a focus on local llm then talk about no GPU, only FPGA. Those feel- at odds. But maybe I'm out of the loop for how far local LLMs on custom hardware has come?
The landing page reads like it was written with an LLM.
Somehow this makes me immediately not care about the project; I expect it to be incomplete vibe-coded filler somehow.
Odd what a strong reaction it invokes already. Like: if the author couldn’t be bothered to write this, why waste time reading it? Not sure I support that, but that’s the feeling.
I don't think it feels particularly LLM-written, I can't find many of the usual tells. However, it is corporate and full of tired cliches. It doesn't matter if it's written by an LLM or not, it's not pleasant to read. It's a self-indulgent sales pitch.
>"It's a tool for personal computing where every application and every surface, exists as code you can read, edit, and extend. It's a system you can truly own"
This sounds a lot like a Smalltalk running as the OS until they started talking about implementing a systems language.
I'm interested in the idea of a clean slate hardware/software system. I think being constrained to support existing hardware or software reduces opportunities for innovation on the other.
I don't see that in this project. This isn't defined by a clean slate. It is defined by properties that it does not want to be.
Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of hardware architectures that would require all-new software. There would be amazing opportunities for discovery writing software for these things. The core principles of the software for such a machine could be based upon a solid philosophical consideration of what a computer should be. Not just "One that doesn't have social media" but what are truly the needs of the user. This is not a simple problem. If it should facilitate but also protect, when should it say no?
If software can run other software, should there be an independent notion of how that software should be facilitated?
What should happen when the user directs two pieces of software to perform contradictory things? What gets facilitated, what gets disallowed.
I'd love to see some truly radical designs. Perhaps model where processing and memory are one, A:very simple core per 1k of SRAM per 64k of DRAM per megabytes of flash, machines with 2^n cores where each core has a direct data channel to every core with its n-bit core ID being one but different (plus one for all bits different).
A n=32 system would have four billion cores and 4 terabytes if RAM and nearly enough persistent storage but it would take talking through up to 15 intermediaries to communicate between any two arbitrary cores.
You could probably start with a much lower n. Then consider how to write software for it that meets the principles that meets the criteria of how it should behave.
> I'm interested in the idea of a clean slate hardware/software system.
I am also interested and I have many ideas about it. However, although my ideas are different from many existing systems in many ways (in many ways that most operating system projects aren't), there are many similarities too, so they are not quite "truly radical".
> I think being constrained to support existing hardware or software reduces opportunities for innovation on the other.
I think this is correct. (My ideas are not intended to be constrained to support existing hardware and software, although emulation of other systems is still possible (NES/Famicom, Game Boy Advance, uxn, etc).)
> It is defined by properties that it does not want to be.
Although it is not sufficient by itself, I think that it is still helpful to define what it is not supposed to be, as well as what it is supposed to be.
Very interesting and ambitious project and nice design. I hope the author will be able to comment here.
I'm interested to hear about the plans or capabilities in R' or Radiance for things like concurrent programming, asynchronous/scheduling, futures, and invisible or implied networking.
AI is here and will be a big part of future personal computing. I wonder what type of open source accelerator for neural networks is available as a starting point. Or if such a thing exists.
One of the opportunities for AI is in compression codecs that could provide for very low latency low bandwidth standards for communication and media browsing.
For users, the expectation will shortly be that you can talk to your computer verbally or send it natural language requests to accomplish tasks. It is very interesting to think how this could be integrated into the OS for example as a metadata or interface standard. Something like a very lightweight version of MCP or just a convention for an SDK filename (since software is distributed as source) could allow for agents to be able to use any installed software by default. Built in embeddings or vector index could also be very useful, maybe to filter relevant SDKs for example.
If content centric data is an assumption and so is AI, maybe we can ditch Google and ChatGPT and create a distributed hash embedding table or something for finding or querying content.
It's really fun to dream about idealized or future computers. Congratulations for getting so far into the details of a real system.
One of my more fantasy style ideas for a desktop uses a curved continuous touch screen. The keyboard/touchpad area is a pair of ergonomic concave curves that meet in the middle and level out to horizontal workspaces on the sides. The surface has a SOTA haptic feedback mechanism.
Look, if someone hasn't done it already, I see absolutely no reason not to build a Lua-based IPFS process, port it absolutely everywhere, and use it to host its own operating system.
Why does it always need to be so difficult? We already have the tools. Our methods, constantly changing and translblahbicatin' unto the falnords, snk snk... this kind of contrafabulation needs to cease.
Just sayin'.
IPFS+Lua. It's all we really need.
Yes yes, new languages are best languages, no no, we don't need it to be amazing, just great.
I'm having a hard time following the through line on these first principles. Likely it's just a "me" problem because I have status quo system designs set in my head, but here are some ideas that seem conflicting to me:
> Hardware and software must be designed as one
In here, they describe an issue with computers is how they use layers of abstraction, and that actually hides complexity. But...
> Computers should feel like magic
I'm not sure how the authors think "magic" happens, but it's not through simplicity. Early computers were quite simple, but I can guarantee most modern users would not think they were magical to use. Of course, this also conflicts with the idea that...
> Systems must be tractable
Why would a user need to know how every aspect of a computer works if they're "magic" and "just work"?
Anyway, I'm really trying not to be cynical here. This just feels like a list written by someone who doesn't really understand how computers or software came to work the way they do.
Like clockwork every year or so someone emerges and says "I'm going to fix computing" and then it never happens. We're as mired in the status quo in computing as we are in politics, and I don't see any way out of it, really.
Also the website is very low contrast (brighten up that background gray a bit!)
Honestly, this seems rambling and unfocused. It's like a grab-bag of recent-ish buzzwords.
The task that has been set is gigantic. Despite that, they've decided to make it even harder by designing a new programming language on top of it (this seems to be all the work done to date).
The hardware challenge alone is quite difficult. I don't know why that isn't the focus at this stage. It is as-if the author is suggesting that only the software is a problem, when some of the biggest issues are actually closed hardware. Sure, Linux is not ideal, but its hardly relavent in comparison.
I think this project suffers from doing too much abstract thinking without studying existing concrete realities.
I would suggest tackling one small piece of the problem in the hardware space, or building directly on some of the work others have done.
I don't disagree with the thesis of the project, but I think it's a MUCH bigger project than the author suggests and would/will require a concentrated effort from many groups of people working on many sub-projects.
I read clean slate architecture and "no baggage" and thought someone was designing a non Von Neuman architecture machine with a novel clockless asynchronous cpu, but nope, it's a custom OS running on RISC-V
54 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 71.0 ms ] threadThis sounded really interesting... till I read this:
> It’s an AI-native operating system. Artificial neural networks are built in and run locally. The OS understands what applications can do, what they expose, and how they fit together. It can integrate features automatically, without extra code. AI is used to extend your ability, help you understand the system and be your creative aid.
(From https://radiant.computer/system/os/)
That's... kind of a wierd thing to have? Other than that, it actually looks nice.
It bugs me because deriving first principles is an extremely complicated task. Its also a very beneficial exercise, especially when trying to build things from the ground up. Constantly asking yourself how this can be broken down even more. First principles are not where you start. Having them should demonstrate a large amount of work having already been done and deep thought into what you're doing.
When clicking on that section I see nothing that looks like first principles. I see really a manifesto and much of which is actually difficult to distinguish from current computing.
It's a nice manifesto, but also seems too vague and naïve. Though the latter is generally a feature of manifestos, not exactly a fault
[0] to me, AI being built in should look more like AI being used like physics informed networks. Which are more using the NN for optimization. You could definitely abstract out more and this would be cool and interesting to see. But from the sound of it, it seems more like they're just putting LLMs in
But then to throw in "you know that thing thats built upon decades of pre-existing infrastructure and assumptions on how computing should work? Yeh thats there too" doesn't seem compatible with the above.
An admirable goal. However putting that next to a bunch of AI slop artwork and this statement...
> One of our goals is to explore how an A.I.-native computer system can enhance the creative process, all while keeping data private.
...is comically out of touch.
The intersection between "I want simple and understandable computing systems" and "I want AI" is basically zero. (Yes, I'm sure some of you exist, my point is that you're combining a slim segment of users who want this approach to tech with another slim segment of users who want AI.)
The image on this page is wild: https://radiant.computer/principles/
Of course, I am intrigued by open architecture. Will they be able to solve graphic card issues though?
Somehow this makes me immediately not care about the project; I expect it to be incomplete vibe-coded filler somehow.
Odd what a strong reaction it invokes already. Like: if the author couldn’t be bothered to write this, why waste time reading it? Not sure I support that, but that’s the feeling.
This sounds a lot like a Smalltalk running as the OS until they started talking about implementing a systems language.
I don't see that in this project. This isn't defined by a clean slate. It is defined by properties that it does not want to be.
Off the top of my head I can think of a bunch of hardware architectures that would require all-new software. There would be amazing opportunities for discovery writing software for these things. The core principles of the software for such a machine could be based upon a solid philosophical consideration of what a computer should be. Not just "One that doesn't have social media" but what are truly the needs of the user. This is not a simple problem. If it should facilitate but also protect, when should it say no?
If software can run other software, should there be an independent notion of how that software should be facilitated?
What should happen when the user directs two pieces of software to perform contradictory things? What gets facilitated, what gets disallowed.
I'd love to see some truly radical designs. Perhaps model where processing and memory are one, A:very simple core per 1k of SRAM per 64k of DRAM per megabytes of flash, machines with 2^n cores where each core has a direct data channel to every core with its n-bit core ID being one but different (plus one for all bits different).
A n=32 system would have four billion cores and 4 terabytes if RAM and nearly enough persistent storage but it would take talking through up to 15 intermediaries to communicate between any two arbitrary cores.
You could probably start with a much lower n. Then consider how to write software for it that meets the principles that meets the criteria of how it should behave.
Different, clean slate, not easy.
I am also interested and I have many ideas about it. However, although my ideas are different from many existing systems in many ways (in many ways that most operating system projects aren't), there are many similarities too, so they are not quite "truly radical".
> I think being constrained to support existing hardware or software reduces opportunities for innovation on the other.
I think this is correct. (My ideas are not intended to be constrained to support existing hardware and software, although emulation of other systems is still possible (NES/Famicom, Game Boy Advance, uxn, etc).)
> It is defined by properties that it does not want to be.
Although it is not sufficient by itself, I think that it is still helpful to define what it is not supposed to be, as well as what it is supposed to be.
I'm interested to hear about the plans or capabilities in R' or Radiance for things like concurrent programming, asynchronous/scheduling, futures, and invisible or implied networking.
AI is here and will be a big part of future personal computing. I wonder what type of open source accelerator for neural networks is available as a starting point. Or if such a thing exists.
One of the opportunities for AI is in compression codecs that could provide for very low latency low bandwidth standards for communication and media browsing.
For users, the expectation will shortly be that you can talk to your computer verbally or send it natural language requests to accomplish tasks. It is very interesting to think how this could be integrated into the OS for example as a metadata or interface standard. Something like a very lightweight version of MCP or just a convention for an SDK filename (since software is distributed as source) could allow for agents to be able to use any installed software by default. Built in embeddings or vector index could also be very useful, maybe to filter relevant SDKs for example.
If content centric data is an assumption and so is AI, maybe we can ditch Google and ChatGPT and create a distributed hash embedding table or something for finding or querying content.
It's really fun to dream about idealized or future computers. Congratulations for getting so far into the details of a real system.
One of my more fantasy style ideas for a desktop uses a curved continuous touch screen. The keyboard/touchpad area is a pair of ergonomic concave curves that meet in the middle and level out to horizontal workspaces on the sides. The surface has a SOTA haptic feedback mechanism.
It’s every engineer’s dream - to reinvent the entire stack, and fix society while they’re at it (a world without social media, sign me up!).
Love the retro future vibes, complete with Robert Tinney-like artwork! (He did the famous Byte Magazine covers in the late 70s and early 80s).
https://tinney.net/article-this-1981-computer-magazine-cover...
Why does it always need to be so difficult? We already have the tools. Our methods, constantly changing and translblahbicatin' unto the falnords, snk snk... this kind of contrafabulation needs to cease.
Just sayin'.
IPFS+Lua. It's all we really need.
Yes yes, new languages are best languages, no no, we don't need it to be amazing, just great.
It'll be great.
> Hardware and software must be designed as one
In here, they describe an issue with computers is how they use layers of abstraction, and that actually hides complexity. But...
> Computers should feel like magic
I'm not sure how the authors think "magic" happens, but it's not through simplicity. Early computers were quite simple, but I can guarantee most modern users would not think they were magical to use. Of course, this also conflicts with the idea that...
> Systems must be tractable
Why would a user need to know how every aspect of a computer works if they're "magic" and "just work"?
Anyway, I'm really trying not to be cynical here. This just feels like a list written by someone who doesn't really understand how computers or software came to work the way they do.
I wonder why the Unix standard doesn't start dropping old syscalls and standards? Does it have to be strictly backwards compatible?
Also the website is very low contrast (brighten up that background gray a bit!)
The Prime Radiant featured in Foundation.
The task that has been set is gigantic. Despite that, they've decided to make it even harder by designing a new programming language on top of it (this seems to be all the work done to date).
The hardware challenge alone is quite difficult. I don't know why that isn't the focus at this stage. It is as-if the author is suggesting that only the software is a problem, when some of the biggest issues are actually closed hardware. Sure, Linux is not ideal, but its hardly relavent in comparison.
I think this project suffers from doing too much abstract thinking without studying existing concrete realities.
I would suggest tackling one small piece of the problem in the hardware space, or building directly on some of the work others have done.
I don't disagree with the thesis of the project, but I think it's a MUCH bigger project than the author suggests and would/will require a concentrated effort from many groups of people working on many sub-projects.