See also “A Word on Omarchy”, discussed on Lobsters 7 months ago with 156 comments. That article called Omarchy “not an actual Linux distribution”, among other things, and a few Lobsters commenters agreed.
I don’t particularly disagree with anything stated here.
I think that if anything Omarchy proves that marketing, not technical purity, gets eyes.
More eyes on Linux, for me personally, is a better thing.
Canonical, for example, is arguably harming the ecosystem in a more fundamental way than a bunch of shitty dotfiles slapped onto Arch.
In order to convince me that Omarchy is a net negative, you’d first have to prove:
that it is harmful to the ecosystem (theoretically easy, bad reputation is harmful for example).
that it is not rising the tide of linux adoption.
If it is growing the pie of Linux users, and they’re having a good time, and it doesn’t “infect” the way open source works w.r.t. Linux- then I struggle to see the grievance.
“Not liking it” is why we have distros in the first place, and I agree in principle about the dotfiles being opinionated and that this is the only compelling thing… but, sometimes that really is all a distro is. They nearly always stand on the back of giants. (Manjaro for Arch, early Ubuntu with Debian, etc).
They have an ISO, and it's a package of Linux + other software. Isn't that pretty much what a distro is?
I don't get why it's less of a distro because it has a key binding to open Hey.com and a script to install NordVPN. Nor why having a conference and merchandise makes it less a distro.
Ubuntu comes with AppArmor, Snap and a default wallpaper image depicting an African animal. Aren't those things also somebody's opinion? In other words: opinionated.
Whenever somebody has had an opinion in a decision in their Linux bundle, does it stop being a distro then suddenly?
The bar for "distro" is extremely low; which is to say: it's just any preconfigured distribution of Linux software. What the author meant is it's not a meaningful distro, such that it barely qualifies as one anyone should even consider.
It's so incredibly meaningless, that it really beggars belief to see so much financial support for a multi-millionaire's pet Arch configuration that he announced to the world in the usual narcissistic acclaim -- with worship from his sycophantic tech bro followers.
Like why is Cloudflare sponsoring a rich dude's pet project? Why not just Arch, which is the actual foundation? Why, specifically, is anyone okay with DHH, who has voiced white supremacist opinions? How and why does an already rich guy get even more financial support and acclaim, but the distro he is basing his "distro" on, is not getting similar or greater support? What maintenance does his little preconfigured setup require? Why not fund and support the Arch devs that do 99.99% of the effort to make his "distro" exist? Astonishing, really.
there are degrees to it, most distros either fully host their entire pipeline or provide a partial setup based on an existing system, Omarchy does nothing and only fulfills the lowest form of "distro"
roryokane | an hour ago
See also “A Word on Omarchy”, discussed on Lobsters 7 months ago with 156 comments. That article called Omarchy “not an actual Linux distribution”, among other things, and a few Lobsters commenters agreed.
dubiouslittlecreature | 52 minutes ago
Some folks arguing the definition of “distro”, but I think we’re all forgetting something important.
DHH is known to be a fascist. Like, has spouted conspiracy theories publicly fascist.
And Framework gave him free stuff and publicity. There’s gotta be some kind of capital G Grift going on here.
dijit | 40 minutes ago
I don’t particularly disagree with anything stated here.
I think that if anything Omarchy proves that marketing, not technical purity, gets eyes.
More eyes on Linux, for me personally, is a better thing.
Canonical, for example, is arguably harming the ecosystem in a more fundamental way than a bunch of shitty dotfiles slapped onto Arch.
In order to convince me that Omarchy is a net negative, you’d first have to prove:
that it is harmful to the ecosystem (theoretically easy, bad reputation is harmful for example).
that it is not rising the tide of linux adoption.
If it is growing the pie of Linux users, and they’re having a good time, and it doesn’t “infect” the way open source works w.r.t. Linux- then I struggle to see the grievance.
“Not liking it” is why we have distros in the first place, and I agree in principle about the dotfiles being opinionated and that this is the only compelling thing… but, sometimes that really is all a distro is. They nearly always stand on the back of giants. (Manjaro for Arch, early Ubuntu with Debian, etc).
DanOpcode | 2 hours ago
Is the definition of "distro" meaningful?
They have an ISO, and it's a package of Linux + other software. Isn't that pretty much what a distro is?
I don't get why it's less of a distro because it has a key binding to open Hey.com and a script to install NordVPN. Nor why having a conference and merchandise makes it less a distro.
Ubuntu comes with AppArmor, Snap and a default wallpaper image depicting an African animal. Aren't those things also somebody's opinion? In other words: opinionated.
Whenever somebody has had an opinion in a decision in their Linux bundle, does it stop being a distro then suddenly?
Slackwise | an hour ago
The bar for "distro" is extremely low; which is to say: it's just any preconfigured distribution of Linux software. What the author meant is it's not a meaningful distro, such that it barely qualifies as one anyone should even consider.
It's so incredibly meaningless, that it really beggars belief to see so much financial support for a multi-millionaire's pet Arch configuration that he announced to the world in the usual narcissistic acclaim -- with worship from his sycophantic tech bro followers.
Like why is Cloudflare sponsoring a rich dude's pet project? Why not just Arch, which is the actual foundation? Why, specifically, is anyone okay with DHH, who has voiced white supremacist opinions? How and why does an already rich guy get even more financial support and acclaim, but the distro he is basing his "distro" on, is not getting similar or greater support? What maintenance does his little preconfigured setup require? Why not fund and support the Arch devs that do 99.99% of the effort to make his "distro" exist? Astonishing, really.
Foxboron | an hour ago
I think it's a meaningless distinction to draw.
Are you downloading an Linux install ISO from a website? Congratz. It's a distribution.
Holding the concept of "Linux distribution" to any high regard seems pointless, especially when FashOS is just technically bad in its own right.
Jan200101 | 26 minutes ago
there are degrees to it, most distros either fully host their entire pipeline or provide a partial setup based on an existing system, Omarchy does nothing and only fulfills the lowest form of "distro"
kristoff | an hour ago
Dunno about being a distro or not, but it does make it hot garbage.
netzego | an hour ago
attention economy at it's best. so predictable and boring. can't wait for the "let's make money" spin.
mitsuhiko | 41 minutes ago
I’m not sure where you draw the line but I remember when people said Ubuntu wasn’t a distribution because it was just Debian rehosted.