I'll admit I read only the summary linked at the beginning, so I surely skipped over minutae that might have lost me. That said, I disagree with this and gp: the conclusion strikes me not as gatekeepy but reasonable and humane to inexperienced users:
> In fact, it is Omarchy that complicates things further down the line, by including a number of unnecessary components and workarounds, especially when it comes to its chosen desktop environment. The moment an inexperienced user wants or needs to change anything, they’ll be confronted with a jumbled mess that’s difficult to understand and even harder to manage.
> If you want Arch but are too lazy to read through its fantastic Wiki, then look at Manjaro, it’ll take care of you. [...]
> On the other hand, if you’re just looking to tweak your existing desktop, check out other people’s dotfiles and dive into the unixporn communities for inspiration.
That strikes me as very fair. I don't think it's gatekeeping to say that setting users up with a "distro" that eschews package management for a pile of curl|sh invocations is a bad idea for which there are much better approaches.
That commentary proves that the guy doesn't get it or is being a willfully obtuse hater. One of the big reasons people have been gravitating toward Omarchy is because they don't want to spend hours ricing or tweaking their desktop, they want to be getting shit done after a sub-15 minute install. And Omarchy does that very well. That's what omakase and "opinionated" mean.
That sounds fine for those first 15 minutes and maybe first weeks though. What if a certain `curl | sh` fails after a month? What if I need some other stuff down the road? If anything the article's criticism makes sense from the perspective of needing to get work done, and omarchy seems to be focused more on the aesthetics. A package manager is exactly what is needed to get shit done instead of tweaking and troubleshooting stuff.
Omarchy is fine as an (opinionated) collection of dotfiles and configurations, but there are reasons proper distros are useful aside from wanting to spend time tweaking stuff or whatever. I don't see how the article talks about anything else than practical issues with it.
Omarchy is a very fast moving target at this point. I have every expectation that in the near future, they'll develop a package manager. I agree that Omarchy is not yet a "real distribution", but it's undeniable that it's rapidly heading in that direction.
> In fact, it is Omarchy that complicates things further down the line, by including a number of unnecessary components and workarounds, especially when it comes to its chosen desktop environment. The moment an inexperienced user wants or needs to change anything, they’ll be confronted with a jumbled mess that’s difficult to understand and even harder to manage.
> If you want Arch but are too lazy to read through its fantastic Wiki, then look at Manjaro, it’ll take care of you. [...]
> On the other hand, if you’re just looking to tweak your existing desktop, check out other people’s dotfiles and dive into the unixporn communities for inspiration.
That strikes me as very fair. I don't think it's gatekeeping to say that setting users up with a "distro" that eschews package management for a pile of curl|sh invocations is a bad idea for which there are much better approaches.