Computers now work the way I thought they did when I was 8. What does computing look like when most applications have an audience of 1-2 people? I'm leaving Fly.io to build a phone for that world.

309 points•fratellobigio•5 days ago•478 comments•

478 comments

tptacek5 days ago
Hey, all. I really don't know what to do with a post like this.

I'm being sincere when I say (as I've said on two threads here) that this genre of posts --- "I'm leaving this company I've been very publicly associated with, and here's the new thing I'm doing" --- is deeply cursed. There's no way to say anything interesting without it just stinking like an ad for the new thing.

Obviously, anything at all you say about a commercial project you're working on is easily read as promotional. And you're right, this kind of writing almost always is promotional. But there's a way to do it where at least you're trying to be in conversation with your peers, rather than hitting people over the head with how awesome you think the project is.

But I don't know how to do that in a post like this. I think the only way to read it is as, like, an investor memo. Not my goal, but I don't make the rules.

So my strategy here is just to stay kind of vague, and talk about where I think the world is going, rather than the specific thing we're doing. I can talk your ears off about capability systems, datalog, models driving hardware, virtualization, whatever. Those are fun conversations and I'm very psyched to have them; it's what lights me up about the work we're doing now.

But I don't think it can work here. I didn't submit this post and I didn't upvote it. I wrote it because I didn't want the whole thing I'm leaving Fly.io for to be wrapped up in some dumb Twitter thread.

If you're unsatisfied with the post, I don't blame you, but it's less a bid for the front page of HN than it is an update to my "about me" page. I'd literally rather talk about HN meta, and how to write for HN, than I would about operating systems at this moment. I truly appreciate the interest though.

jacobgold5 days ago
Personally, I'd like to hear the full pitch, and I suspect many others would too. If the ideas are interesting enough for you to dedicate the next N years of your life to, I'm probably willing to spend 10 minutes reading the blog post. Particularly from you, a known-good writer.
Filligree5 days ago
I’m already edging in the article’s direction on my desktop. I recognised a lot of this, and it makes a great deal of sense.

The only question is if it’ll still make sense in six months, or if an even more unreasonable approach will be the correct one. Feels like a singularity.

diydsp5 days ago
Sounds like "secure phone for mass vibeware." Probably containers, authentication, auto analysis, protected user data, etc. Just diff enough from apple/andr that it can't be slapped in overnight.
altcognito5 days ago
I really appreciate the post.

I completely agree that we haven’t even gotten past the first post yet in terms of the magnitude of change that is likely to occur. People fail to comprehend that we’re still assimilating the Internet as a means of communication. Cell phones. It will be decades before what we have today is fully utilized, let alone what is likely to be developed. Anyway, thanks for the article.

ridruejo5 days ago
You are overthinking it :) You are one of the most interesting people on HN. I am sure others think along those lines too and would love to learn more about what you are building and where the industry is going. Others can just tune it out.
unified1015 days ago
Hi Thomas, I think you're being too defensive. It's ok, I look forward to your technical posts, on what you imaging this OS powered by AI to be. Will be a fun ride.

If you're looking for a UX idea, when the phone boots, it asks "What are the top 5 things you do?". And that's how the phone experience starts.

All the best. (Ignore the silly haters, they're lost in their AI pessimism to just look forward to a new intersting thing).

tptacek5 days ago
Oh, I'm not worried about the haters, they're the air we all breathe; I'm just neurotic about my writing.
dtkav5 days ago
We were on a call recently where I mentioned that as a fly user SDLC and declarative config was more important than ever, and so I was pushing for sprites to have OCI images.

I'm pretty AI pilled, and I'm building a local-first personal software platform, but I dunno... I've been feeling like i need to cram the "AI spirit" into very specifically shaped boxes to actually build robust software tastefully at speed. Like software on the outside and AI on the inside instead of the other way around.

I do think the future of computing will definitely be more like the Linux diaspora than the apple ecosystem, but also.. it is easy to get "duped" by AI without actually shipping. I'm starting to want "KPIs" to help me measure if my time is actually well spent against the things i care about.

I guess I'm extrapolating from your post, but even if the programming language is English, we'll probably still want to spend a large amount of additional compute to produce "artifacts" that have things like performant code, security hardening, and certified taste.

I do think the future of computing will definitely be more like the Linux diaspora than the apple ecosystem, but also... when i first got into linux i spent way too long trying to get my desktop perfectly aesthetic because it was all suddenly malleable. Now i vibe more with Debian.

I wish you luck, and I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with! Fun times ahead for sure.

rjbwork5 days ago
> I've been feeling like i need to cram the "AI spirit" into very specifically shaped boxes to actually build robust software tastefully at speed.

This is such incredible verbiage. Thank you for saying something so clearly that I've been saying myself in many other ways. I've been using terms such as "providing structure" and "applying constraints" and "reducing degrees of freedom".

I think very specifically the idea of "taste" is going to be extremely important in these AI-saturated days, and it's really where experienced humans will shine...at least for a while.

sjpb5 days ago
A post a few days ago turned funtional core, imperative shell into deterministic core, non-deterministic shell. And a comment [1] on that discussed turning that into "slop core, artisinal shell". Which makes a lot of sense actually despite feeling the wrong round initially. And maybe what an OS needs to do is to support that, at a higher level. What I think we will need is strong isolation - all the software might be coming from the "same place", but do we trust that place? Certainly not currently!

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49784704

meredithbloom5 days ago
> "But it booted straight into BASIC. That’s all it did. I was, like, 8 years old. I wasn’t about to learn BASIC. What I learned instead: computers were not as awesome as I’d imagined."

You were the exception. Most kids felt awe. We started learning BASIC and creating "dumb games". That's the origin story of most people my age who ended up in this doomed industry.

autoexec5 days ago
I think you were the exception. Most kids never even knew what BASIC was. If there was a game already on the computer, they'd be happy to play it. If they really liked the game they might learn how to start the game if it wasn't already running, but they didn't care about doing anything else. Kids who were into computers looked at a computer and saw endless possibility. Everybody else played sports outside, watched TV, or hung out with their friends.
musicale5 days ago
> Most kids never even knew what BASIC was

Yet magazines and books commonly published program listings for games in BASIC which many kids somehow managed to type in and run.

popalchemist5 days ago
It was probably a function of not just personality type but education. For whatever reason I was taught basic in elementary school as a millennial and it left an impression.
zahlman4 days ago
Probably for quite a while kids were more likely to have a console than access to an actual computer. But if you had a computer it was not like you could rely on having someone else around to start up the game for you. In fact there was a good chance that your access to a computer was arranged by adults who specifically expected you to learn how to use it.
pjmlp4 days ago
We surely did, in those days you couldn't get computer games when you felt like, even pirated ones.

You either endless played the fews that you had, or eventually got to learn BASIC, and the more curious ones could even got one of those machine language books from the local library.

iso16315 days ago
In that area, kids with computers that booted straight to basic like the spectrum, bbc micro, c64 etc fell into two camps -- those who were interested, and those whose parents were interested. I suspect the former were more numerous, as to have a parent interested enough to spend a fortune on a computer without the pester power of the kid feels quite niche.

The vast majority of kids never touched computers, other than maybe running logo at school to move a turtle around.

Most kids who were only interested in a game had a NES or Sega console.

Of the former group, the awe began when you wrote in the example program from the manual or magazine, made it do something, and then changed it. Even something as simple as changing from 3 lives to 99.

thfuran5 days ago
Your priors are all out of whack. Most people never learned BASIC, let alone at 8. Programming is much more accessible now than then, but the overwhelming majority of people still don’t know any JavaScript or python or anything else.
musicale5 days ago
Programming (by humans) is less accessible in 2026 because most personal computing devices don't boot into a programming environment and they don't include a user-friendly programming instruction manual (graphing calculators may be an exception however). And before the era of "there's an app for that" it was assumed that users would need to write their own programs, so systems were designed to support that. Vibe programming (by LLMs) is more accessible now however.

BASIC was designed as a simplified, interactive version of FORTRAN that non-experts could learn in an afternoon, but which was still powerful enough for a wide range of applications including numerical methods, simulations, data processing, and games. It was also small enough to implement effectively on a timeshared minicomputer or an 8-bit microcomputer.

Even though the Mac was GUI-based, for a time it shipped with, and promoted, HyperCard, which led to a brief explosion of user-created programs developed as HyperCard stacks.

hodgesrm5 days ago
> Most people never learned BASIC, let alone at 8.

I learned it at age 12. It was pretty much as the author described, except in my case the "computer" was a Texas Instruments teletype, a phone, and a 300 baud modem. Plus a booklet with reddish cover introducing the BASIC language and how to connect to our school account at Washtenaw Computing Services. That was the beginning of a life-long journey with computers.

ninjalanternshk5 days ago
I’d argue programming is much less accessible now. For starters “programming” means a thousand different things and where do you even start?

My Apple //e came with one language, BASIC, it was built in, nothing to buy, and came with a book on how to get started writing it.

But yeah I didn’t start at 8.

We didn’t get that Apple until I was 10, so that’s then I started.

tptacek5 days ago
I had Turbo C as a young teenager, but really learned C at the csh prompt of a terminal connected to a giant DG/UX computer in my first summer job.

I actually still don't know BASIC.

pjmlp4 days ago
Not 8, but surely at 10.
wetwater5 days ago
You were the exception too. A PC was one of the most expensive items in my house when we bought it. The computer table it sat on was the second most. I was so afraid of doing anything on it that'd break it. Heck I freaked out one time when I shut it down from the power button directly.
inopinatus5 days ago
My Acorn BBC Model B booted straight into BBC BASIC as well, and I too thought it was awesome and taught myself BASIC straight away, and then 6502 assembler and latterly BCPL and so on. I was even younger than OP.

But I think we were the exception, even if we didn’t realise it at the time. In hindsight, my interest was most definitely not shared by my peers.

RaftPeople5 days ago
> You were the exception.

I was really surprised by the article, I assumed it was going to be the same as my experience which was amazement at having the ability to write instructions that caused the system to do stuff, like make dumb games initially in basic and then better games in assembly.

utopiah5 days ago
I feel like most articles challenging OSes have no idea what an OS is.

Sure question what the latest tool can offer and how to integrate with it... but that's just being an app, or a window manager, or a package manager, or a distribution, that's not challenging what the OS itself is and does.

If your OS doesn't change how a computer allocates resources, then you are talking about higher level, and that can be super valuable too, arguably more valuable, but ... that's a different thing.

PS: also chroot (half a century, just checked for the fun of it), jails, containers, VMs, etc limiting how the allocation can be done do exist and have been used for decades already.

thadt5 days ago
Having built software runnging on everything from microcontrollers to cloud servers to browsers, I also have no idea what an OS is.

In the context of a microcontroller, is it an RTOS? How is that different from something like Embassy with Rust, where hardware allocation and coordination is handled more at build time and less at runtime? In the context of a something showing up on a screen, is an OS something providing a UI framework and hardware abstraction - something like Win32 or Cocoa? What does that make Chrome?

In 2006 it felt like an answer to the question "what is an OS" was straightforward. In 2026, I'm rather confident that I don't have a single, simple answer. If there were ever a time to re-assess what we thought we knew about computing - now seems like a good time to do it.

pjmlp4 days ago
Which is why notions like freestanding, monitor and such also exist.
alt2275 days ago
As far as I am concerned an OS is really simple to define. Its the thing that manages hardware resources on a device to allow other software to run using said resources.

LLMs are not OSes and never will be, they will always need some software to first bootstrap the hardware before the software which processes the weighting can begin.

Its like we need Richard Stallman to come and argue the difference between GNU and Linux again!

pixl975 days ago
>LLMs are not OSes and never will be

If we ask this a different way, is there a single self executable file when written to the sector of the disk the hardware looks for can contain the instructions for the hardware and the weights all in one?

I can't thing of any informational theory reason why this can't be the case. The only thing I can think of structuring such far more complex and less worthwhile than just having separate layers. Dealing with this biological/intelligence mess in humans is already hard enough as it is.

enos_feedler5 days ago
Agreed. Investing in creating a whole new phone just to usher in the concepts here sounds like an expensive and slow way to do it.
josephg5 days ago
> that's a different thing.

I hear what you’re saying, but we don’t have a word for that different thing. OS means the kernel. But OS also means the entire distribution - all of macOS, all of iOS, all of windows, Ubuntu, Android, etc.

Until we have a standard word for the ui “shell” that comes out of the box with the OS distribution, people - including me - are gonna call (and think of it) as the OS. Or part of the os. Or something like that.

Bjartr5 days ago
I can't quite tell if you're being cheeky

> we don’t have a word for ... the ... distribution

> Until we have a ... word for the ... shell

distribution/distro and shell are exactly the words we have for these things

But OS sounds more impressive/important, so it's a lot more prevalent.

AlienRobot5 days ago
i.e. most users think the OS is shell, not the kernel.
linkregister5 days ago
I don't know what's wrong with my perspective. I cannot relate to this at all.

I am at a job where I am paid well to build software to do things in a distributed system that processes information across various external systems (some with physical world impacts). The outcome of that computing is revenue for the company. Using agent-wrapped LLMs makes the software authorship component of the job really fast. The rest is virtually the same speed.

For Thomas's mobile computing examples, these are done really well by my phone's operating system's built-in voice command system, mature for a decade by now.

At home, I use software that is well-crafted to do some thing. Or I write a series of scripts to do narrow things that for some reason aren't in Aptitude or Snap, for example "copy all the photos off my iPhone and rename them and sort them by date in my filesystem".

Perhaps I have no imagination, but I don't feel like having an LLM make applications on my phone. I want good software that someone that I trust wrote.

Thomas has been a successful cryptographer, vulnerability analyst, and entrepreneur, so he probably knows what he's doing. I just don't get it.

zzo38computer5 days ago
> At home, I use software that is well-crafted to do some thing. Or I write a series of scripts to do narrow things that for some reason aren't in Aptitude or Snap, for example "copy all the photos off my iPhone and rename them and sort them by date in my filesystem".

> Perhaps I have no imagination, but I don't feel like having an LLM make applications on my phone. I want good software that someone that I trust wrote.

I do not use LLM either, and do not intend to do. I can write my own programs. Even if someone does want to use LLM, it should neither be required nor expected nor the default (and there are also reasons why I think that it should be discouraged to use LLM too much); you should be able to write the scripts and programs by yourself if you want to do it that way (and the computer made to make this possible to do without LLM), even if some people can make LLM to do it at their option, but it should not to require LLM and AI.

I also think that the computer that can start with a programming language such as BASIC or Forth (without first needing menus and GUI to access all of the programs) is useful, and that it is not as good that many modern computers do not do like that.

zahlman4 days ago
Let me add my voice to that. It's strange to me that people are now talking about LLM integration in daily-driving their computer as if it would be something desirable. As if being able to "write one's own programs" directly wouldn't be enough; as if the focus shouldn't be on just making that as easy as possible, so that you can just type out what you want instead of expecting a nondeterministic system to infer your meaning. And that's before considering the security risks.

It feels to me rather analogous to being in a foreign country and, rather than learning the local language, you get to hire this translator that works for absurdly cheap, but you have no real idea of the accuracy (because you didn't learn!) and for some reason the translator is only able to speak while physically holding your wallet.

Oddly enough, from what I can tell, AI-powered translation services are not capturing a lot of imagination, while interest in AI-powered (human) language tutoring is booming (at least on the supply side).

Ntrails5 days ago
> you should be able to write the scripts and programs by yourself if you want to do it that way

Having chat gpt one write me a powershell script took a 3 hour manual task using software and made it a 10 minute task which I can repeat any time I fancy should I need to.

Writing something similar would've taken me an hour+ just to dig out the key pieces of information I needed to start in a language I am proficient in. Why would I waste my time?

ignoramous5 days ago
> don't know what's wrong with my perspective

Nothing. Thomas, as most ambitious start up founders do according to PG, is living in the future.

  There are already a few places that are living in the future in this respect. Silicon Valley is one of them: an unknown person working on a strange-sounding idea won't automatically be dismissed the way they would back home ...

  The right way to deal with new ideas is to treat them as a challenge to your imagination — not just to have lower standards, but to switch polarity entirely, from listing the reasons an idea won't work to trying to think of ways it could.
https://www.paulgraham.com/early.html
decasia5 days ago
@tptacek I think my question about your post is this — right now people rely on a lot of apps written by professionals for things like mobile banking, messaging, medical providers, mobile payments, and subscription services (music, tv, etc). The interests of the app publishers aren’t aligned with total user freedom — banking app developers don’t want a totally malleable OS where there are no process separations or trust partitions. Rather, they want to rely on OS level guarantees that their code is isolated from other apps, that the binaries are signed, that the platform is somehow trusted.

I love your idea of an OS where users write their own apps as they want. But if they want to connect to third party services or use commercial software, won’t there still have to be a lot of security guarantees? I don’t just mean the depressing “browsers must implement DRM or you can’t watch streaming video.” I mean “how will medical providers trust your device enough to give you your lab results” if you are thinking of majorly changing the mobile device security model.

It’s not a hostile question, I’m genuinely curious about this design tradeoff.

tptacek5 days ago
Doesn't sound hostile at all. These are the real hard questions. The 2 major mobile platforms don't seem to want this to happen at all, but you can work around that by building your own platform. But the largest API vendors don't want it either, and they're much harder to work around.
nogridbag5 days ago
Have you seen the Googlebook? I think Google is taking the lead here with "Create a Widget". I think some have overlooked this feature or treated it as a gimmick. But this is the first step into average users building small micro apps just for themselves. I think it will go from Create a Widget to Create an App within a short period.
callc4 days ago
My little story:

I recently replaced my $HEALTHCARE_APP with the PWA of their website. It was the *exact* same. The app was just a webview (and a pretty good one at that!)

It makes me really question how much “security” these services need when they have websites that can do everything the app can do.

tootie5 days ago
The fear maybe a year ago was SaaSpocalypse. Why pay for Salesforce when I can vibe a CRM to my exact needs? Turns out to not be that easy.

The lion's share of value in a product like Salesforce is the ability to say "we run Salesforce" and have everyone know what you mean and have ready answers to all your problems even if they're not perfectly tailored (or cheap). Same thing with OS really. If natural language is now the most powerful programming language then having shared vocabulary on technical topics is more valuable than ever.

nozzlegear5 days ago
> The fear maybe a year ago was SaaSpocalypse. Why pay for Salesforce when I can vibe a CRM to my exact needs? Turns out to not be that easy.

In fact, it looks like the advent of AI has actually accelerated revenue growth for SaaS rather than killed it off. People simply aren't building these custom SaaS-killers as much as commenters on HN would have us believe.

Stripe Economics, The SaaSpocalypse was more like a RenaiSaaS: https://www.stripeeconomics.com/p/the-saaspocalypse-was-more...

archeantus5 days ago
Banks and schools and businesses should get in the business of simply vending APIs (or MCP connections). Agents and bots are taking away the need for the endless knobs and dials of traditional software. Just expose my data securely and my agent will do what I want with it, when I need it.
pixl975 days ago
"Should get", so yea, not going to happen. The most obvious should get is exactly where we are now. What you're saying is "They should be forced to" which is just what we call laws and regulations regarding digital availability. Of course this is difficult to do since they will fight back monetarily against what they would consider perverse motivation to what we are already considering perverse motivations from them.

Read the full thread on Hacker News →

Related stories