The main thing keeping me from trying out Omarchy is the pain of setting up multiple displays. I haven't tried Hyprland, but whenever I've tried a non-mainstream desktop/wm in Linux that was the worst, especially if your setup changes often (as in, you have a laptop and move around and plug it in different places).
May be that just means I'm not enough of a tinkerer for these setups.
Is it a hard problem to remember more than one configuration and link them to the displays connected to your computer? Or is it just that Omarchy users really don't mind editing monitor.conf[1] often?
I use swaywm and kanshi [0]. It's write once, forget forever. I have one config for each of the display compositions I have (office, home, gaming, eDP...), and "it just works".
I don't really need it, but maybe my setup is too simple. I set my laptop monitor to auto-right, external display to auto-left and that's it. Set it and forget it for me.
I just have a bash script that runs on startup which just greps the output of xrandr to determine if I am connected to home/office/no monitors and then runs the appropriate xrandr commands to config them.
On the occasion when I (dis)connect monitors without restarting the laptop, I just have some command line aliases (home/office/laptop) which run the appropriate config
Yes, but you can have a similar setup to what he is describing, just with different commands.
I'm using niri instead hyperland.
I can either use `sed` on it's configuration file (on/off, resolution, position) or for some of its configurations I can use the cli (for output scale).
> Omarchy skips installation of a login display manager. Instead, Hyprland autostarts and password protection is provided upon boot by the LUKS full disk encryption service.
Normally I'd say I would be exactly the type of person that would use such a thing. But what scares me away and makes me stay with vanilla KDE Plasma is that perceived upfront cost of having to relearn everything and having to customize for hours to then have something that feels 100% better in some and 100% worse in other situations.
Maybe that just means I am currently at a point in my life where I haven't got the time or energy to play around with these things. I'd rather have KDE Plasma with a hint of tiling window manager than a tiling window manager with a hint of Plasma, if you get what I mean.
I skipped through the 38 minutes and landed on like 8 instances were he was switching themes/wallpaper and 4 showing of bash scripts that opens a webpage. It looks like all the fluxbox/openbox themed minimal desktops in the 2000s - function follows form. Feels really performative.
DHH switched from Mac to Linux and is in the process of experimenting with his setup, but since he's famous within tech, it's getting a lot of attention. There's really nothing special about it.
Haven't "launchers" existed for decades at this point though? I remember Crunchbang (RIP) having something similar for example, and that must have been almost two decades ago at this point.
Omarchy and CachyOS are very interesting but they do not look serious about security [0] [1].
I mean in this day and age we all agree you need disk encryption (for a least 20 years) but what about SELinux, application sandboxing for example?
Especially for a desktop OS like Omarchy shipped with a bunch of apps and "plugins".
This has been a Linux Desktop weakness for more than a decade (compared to macOS, Windows and Android). App sandboxing is a bit sketchy and hard to get right.
The fact they do not explicitly state their strategy regarding those things make me believe this is a bit amateurish.
> Especially for a desktop OS like Omarchy shipped with a bunch of apps and "plugins".
Omarchy is _just_ a set of scripts to have a nice looking Arch Linux and some helper scripts for day to day tasks. It's not a distribution per se, it doesn't have repositories or packages of its own.
Therefore, your criticism of app sandboxing is more for Arch than Omarchy IMHO.
> Therefore, your criticism of app sandboxing is more for Arch than Omarchy IMHO.
I've never been an Arch user but deeply respect the project since their wiki as always been my favorite documentation.
From what I understand Arch is very much DIY, non opinionated and you you need to decide and build the security level / strategy that fit your needs. It seems you can go Flatpak, SELinux but only if you want.
I was kind of lurking for an equivalent of SecureBlue in the Arch world, meaning an Arch derived distro with a strong security posture. Allowing me to get started without worrying too much about it.
The distributed development model makes it tricky, because distributions themselves aren't necessarily the developers of sandboxing solutions, there's multiple approaches, many are incompatible with each other, none are fully mature and support every tool users could realistically want to run.
Same with selinux/apparmor/competitors, they're all mutually exclusive to some degree and have different pros and cons. RHEL shoves selinux down everyone's throat without caring how well that works in practice, and coincidentally 100% of RHEL systems I've interacted with have it disabled.
Until there's solutions that are mature, the best solution for distros is still to let users choose the lesser evil for their specific use case.
The README on this github link does not explain to me why this is necessary, or why someone is doing it.
reply