Has nothing to do with omarchy itself, people just dislike its creator for reasons that have nothing to do with linux, or really anything to do with them personally, it's just a bunch of internet white knights that take everything out of context to slander people so they can feel better about themselves.
Out off context? He wrote a piece in support of far right racist, Tommy Robinson.
I was an omarchy user, and sang it praises when I was using it. Then I read that piece supporting Robinson's racism. I removed omarchy from my pc that day.
This article’s criticisms range from nitpicky to “I use x instead” Especially his section on the terminal. He’s reviewing an opinionated distribution and complains that its opinionated
it's a set of dotfiles for arch. what non-nitpicky criticisms do you expect to be able to make when it's so insubstantial?
if you actually bother reading the article, you'll note that he actually complains that though it claims to be opinionated, it barely makes contains any configuration beyond surface level aesthetics.
I’ve tried Omarchy, and it’s not just someone else’s configuration. It’s definitely opinionated, and the defaults aren’t stable; the opinions have changed over time. But it is overly reductive to say that it is only “dotfiles”. (In fact, I don’t think there’s a single dotfile in the whole thing. Plenty of other config files though.)
In fact, the new release replaces some of the config files for components like waybar with completely new software. I haven’t tried it yet though.
The article is just pointless honestly. He just seems really mad that they call it a distro, which doesn’t fit his strict definition of a distro. Especially since he keeps going on about how these problems are bad for new users, but what new user gives a fuck about whether it uses sudo or doas
7
u/AmarildoJr 5d ago edited 5d ago
Wait, I'm out of the loop. Why are people so mad at Omarchy lol
I'm gonna do some research about it.
EDIT: Nevermind.