Ariadne Conill 🐰

@siwek @Sobex @danirabbit yes, hence my description of it as marketing

@siwek yes, hence "the package management? flatpak"

@PuercoPop @ska maybe you should spend some time asking these people why they installed it then.

@whitequark nothing. there is nothing wrong with flathub.

what i am proposing is building just enough of a distribution to boot a shell, and then have the real apps come from flathub.

@Sobex @danirabbit

to understand the lesson, you must look at what omarchy actually *is*

which on a technical level, is not much

you are focusing on technical details when the focus of omarchy is *marketing*

@whitequark correct.

@Sobex @danirabbit yes, elementaryOS is an example of a productized linux

and it is a good example

but i would not say that it reflects the lesson omarchy is teaching us

managing software needs to be obvious. package managers ain't it.

on mac, you install apps from either the app store or by dragging them to the applications folder.

somebody has already suggested that we should build this on Nix or whatever.

and like, you're just not getting the point.

the package management? flatpak.

@scien your thoughts are basically the opposite direction of what a productized form of linux should look like.

for example, there should not be 'package management'. (there should, but it should not be a focus *at all*)

we are designing for people who want to use their computer, not customize their computers.

@ska we should want to, because many of the users of omarchy are most likely not fascists, but just want to think of linux as a product, in the same way they think of macOS and Windows as products.

in essence omarchy is a mechanism to take linux and turn it into a product, in the same way that macOS takes darwin and turns it into a product.

traditional linux distributions, by comparison, aren't defined products, they are work output from technical communities, and the design of them is approached from that philosophy.

a lot of people do not understand what omarchy actually *is* and why it is making progress where traditional distributions have failed.

they focus on the fact that omarchy *is* a vanity distro, that it is basically a collection of configuration files and some shell scripts gluing them together.

and omarchy is that.

but omarchy is also marketing and devrel, and a consolidation of the linux experience into a product format.

in fact, that is most of what omarchy actually *is*.

building a technical community that understands & executes on these things would be the goal of what i propose building

@ska @cadey no, omarchy is many things, and it needs to be pushed back upon on all fronts. i don't care about the money, i have a day job.

@moses_izumi governance. if I am building a derivative then I need my upstream to remain steady.

@moses_izumi i'm still ruminating on whether alpine is a stable base to use for this

@dysfun yes, one that is turnkey and has a hacker-oriented aesthetic

@cadey yeah, it is basically about aesthetics, and i think i have good taste in hacker aesthetics

maybe i should build something like omarchy that isn't, you know, omarchy

@unredacted thanks