omarchy is not a distro

109 points by j3s


roryokane

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

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

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:

  1. that it is harmful to the ecosystem (theoretically easy, bad reputation is harmful for example).

  2. 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).

mitsuhiko

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.

DanOpcode

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?

steinuil

I think the title misses the point. I don't think whether it's a distro matters. Is my NixOS configuration that manages ~5 computers for 2 people a distro? Maybe. Who cares. Is it bad that a Linux "distro" includes proprietary software by default and makes it easy to use a racist LLM? Maybe. IMO it does more good than harm; I think having control over your hardware is more valuable than not using proprietary software and services, though the racist LLM part is particularly distasteful.

This is the most important point:

and why does it have a conference, sponsors, and merchandise?

especially when longstanding distros like Debian have struggled with funding and sponsorship for decades?

Is it bad that a rich fascist techbro's collection of dotfiles slapped over an established distro is getting more funding than the distro it builds upon just because the techbro has clout? Yes, in all its facets.

netzego

attention economy at it's best. so predictable and boring. can't wait for the "let's make money" spin.

schuelermine

It is very confusing why anybody who used it or knew much about it would promote it. I’m not ready to accept that it’s just people who fall in the same social circle or have similar politics trying to promote one of their own yet, but the longer it is taking for interest in Omarchy to naturally fade away, the less tenable that is.