How does it compare to DHH’s Omarchy? Looking for opinions from those who tried both.

Omarchy is not a distribution; just a customized Arch setup.

This may be my ignorance, but aren't most distributions [1] just an Arch / Fedora / Debian / whatever base with a desktop environment and a few opinionated choices (UI tweaks, installed applications, etc.)?

[1] I realise CachyOS makes some kernel modifications, but is that typical?

I believe the difference is between Omarchy simply having some default configuration for certain applications compared to CachyOS having a repository with a larger amount of packages which are being maintained by the CachyOS devs.

> [1] I realise CachyOS makes some kernel modifications, but is that typical?

Yes, very common. I think not making modifications (like Arch) is the atypical case, as "unmodified from upstream" is one of the core value propositions for Arch and why we chose it in the first place.

Still, CachyOS is probably an outlier in the amount of tweaks it does, and the amount of choices it surfaces to users about those tweaks.

There is https://github.com/mroboff/omarchy-on-cachyos if one wanted it. I didn't, because I'm considering that a fad.

You can just install Omarchy then switch the repos:

https://wiki.cachyos.org/features/optimized_repos/#adding-ou...

This, cutting through the noise, this is it.

People who have not discovered the importance of time, and can’t appreciate an outstanding leadership.

Signature, a distinctive signature that looks like.

The “do good” behavior is astonishing

The power of one, the power of a mind who can’t take no for an answer to the inner voice.

And don’t lecture me about the many, for the many wouldn’t have started it, they joined the one.

You know the one, cherish him.

Thanks!

It worked for Twitter, very well from an IT point of view.

Twitter fired all the advertising account managers, and no longer makes money because it essentially no longer has ads.

It definitely has ads every four tweets and in the comments.

Those mostly aren't ads, those are promoted tweets by literal crazy people or crypto scams. They aren't paying millions for them.

Genuine question: what makes you think Twitter is profitable? As far as I can tell, the numbers are a secret.

It wasn't a total collapse like some were expecting, they haven't really done much new however. Cutting some of the fat was a good idea but they might have gone a little too lean in places.

It works great for Twitter. Every other month there is a strategy failure to get some media attention.

I still remember the doom preached at the crossroads. Guess what happened over the next years.

They didn't go down, but the lack of staff is starting to show in some areas. For example, clicking on certain links in their developer docs leads nowhere. There are also API issues, such as disappearing likes. Everything has its consequences.

Did Twitter get any better?

Twitter doesn’t make a profit. It’s propped up by a billionaire so he can have social clout.

Recently, I’ve noticed that nothing hits the top spot as quickly as anything negative about Elon.

Maybe very briefly before it get flagged

Both are in fact true. Any highly controversial topic elicits strong emotions on both sides (as well as those who are just bored of the topic and want it to go away), and thus rapidly attracts many upvotes but also many flags.