least

Are they disconnected from its customers in current year?

They may be alienating the core audience that made them who they are, but I don't think they're disconnected from their customer base, which has changed. RTSes are not popular and they are not platform-agnostic like an FPS is.

The UBO on Safari has the same issue as chrome except that it has been that way for several years longer. They brought back the lite form of UBO only recently as, presumably, the developer saw the writing on the wall and mv3 and Safari carry the same limitations.

I think safari is largely fine but there are a lot of web APIs that it doesn’t support, rightly or not. A lot of devices are configurable through serial connections using the Web Serial APO thats only available in chromium browsers.

As a primary browser it really comes down to ergonomics. Things on top of the engine that make someone prefer one browser over the other.

People don’t particularly care for platitudes from anonymous people on the internet. Even less so when they reduce a complex dilemma in your life to a binary choice between an “easy and amoral” option and a “difficult but righteous” one.

Most people make compromises inside imperfect systems. The person casting judgment almost certainly has their own moral compromises too, except those they understand, contextualize, rationalize, and forgive themselves for.

It’s just tiresome. There may not be a ton of context, but even knowing that someone is bound to a particular place because of caregiving responsibilities should be enough to invite a little more empathy and grace, and a lot less judgment.

The United States experiences the same sort of issues, just with different sports.

> I have one of those, this kinda of screen is uncomfortable at 2x scale (everything gets too big), so I generally set up to 1.25x or 1.5x. This is not what is being set by default by Omarchy though.

It's better that everything be a bit too big that requires tinkering than everything being way too small (where you can't read the text on the screen). The 2x scale is pretty usable for even 150PPI.

As I mentioned in another post, hyprland does support using the preferred scaling based on the EDID information which is probably the right choice, but I can't really verify that myself.

They don't need to. A lot of PC laptops feature high PPI displays. If you're using a moderately modern laptop, it's probably a high PPI display. A 14 inch laptop with a 1080p display is already at close to 160PPI. That's an option on a T480, a laptop from 2018. A P14S has an option for a 14 inch, 2880x1800 display, or 240+ PPI! The Dell Pro 14 has both an option for 1080p (~160PPI) and 2560x1600 (~215PPI). A 16 inch display with the same 2560x1600 resolution is close to 190PPI. Intel Macbooks Pro have had retina displays since 2012.

It's neither a novelty nor a Mac-only feature these days. A huge portion of the pc laptop market has high PPI displays and it's becoming increasingly rare to see anything that'd comfortably display at 1x scaling.

If they have a mac laptop or iMac they have a >200 PPI monitor. If you have a higher end PC laptop, a lot of them go well past that.

If you're only talking about desktop displays, then I 100% agree that almost no one has them because until very recently, hardly any have existed because the only people who cared about it are people using MacOS. But given the increased number of 5k monitors with high refresh and gaming features shown off at CES and expected to hit the market this year, on top of a smattering of productivity-oriented displays with high PPI coming out in the past year, this could likely change.

I'd say it's something that benefits Windows and Linux because fractional scaling still isn't perfect on either OS. But Windows, frankly, does scaling for desktop in a much more pragmatic and (for most people) better way than MacOS, so having to set your 4k 27 inch monitor to 150% scaling isn't a big deal. Things still look relatively sharp. On MacOS, not so much.

What makes one a distro and one a spin, flavor, or other made up branding by one of the larger linux vendors?

It's arbitrary. They're all linux distributions delivering distinct OS experiences. The only reason we call one a 'flavor' or 'spin' is because Red Hat and Ubuntu wanted to maintain a core identity with its product line.

> If you want stuff working out of the box for non-technical people give them an Ubuntu LTS release, not window managers on release version 0.x. maintained by people in a discord

"Technical people" covers a vast variety of people. I can and have configured many different non-mainstream WMs and implemented different bars, and found workarounds to different issues that arise from them, both in wayland and X11. A person can be just as technical as I am and still have no interest nor desire to set that all up, but still want to explore or use the paradigm shift that something like a tiling or scrolling WM offer.

The problem is that these paradigms people find appealing aren't decoupled. You can't just drop it in to your current desktop because the window management is so tightly coupled to the compositor. You can try things like PaperWM, of course, but you don't really get to experience Niri unless you install it, and then figure out how to handle everything else you need in a way that you'd want.

If Omarchy used GNOME or Plasma, there's zero chance it'd have taken off in the same way it has. Yes, it is definitely a case of its virality being tied to an influencer, but it isn't ultimately why someone would stick with it. It gets rid of a lot of the gatekeeping that exists. Anyone that can install a linux distro can install Omarchy and get a fully functional system. That is something we need more of, not less.

No Linux distribution offers a good out-of-the-box experience with anything outside of XFCE, GNOME, or KDE Plasma. On the other end, these alternative WMs lack all of the shell features that people expect from a desktop experience.

I run regular Arch with Niri and Noctalia Shell, which is based on Quick Shell. It is a pretty solid experience. But even with Quick Shell, which has taken a lot of the pain out of closing the gap between traditional DEs and these tiling WMs, it’s still a decent chunk of configuration.

Without it, I’d be doing a ton more configuration with a bar and scripts to display some information. And then those would be hardly functional, since really they’re just showing some stdout from the terminal. If I wanted to actually, say, connect to a new Bluetooth device, I’d still be heading to the terminal to connect.

That gap is what makes Omarchy interesting to me, and presumably to the people who seem to really like it.

Omarchy lets someone install it just like another “real” distribution and get a working OS without having to do hours of configuration and ensuring they have all the additional utilities they’d expect to have.

I think it does kind of have to be a “distro” because the appeal is that you don’t maintain the scripts yourself. You can just install it and get sensible defaults from a fresh install.

There’s nothing stopping Ubuntu, Fedora, or another major distribution from creating something like this. They already have Plasma and GNOME variants that include bundled software and sensible defaults customized from the delivered version of those DEs.

My question for people is whether their objection has to do with Omarchy itself or with the person or people behind it. I get that even without a controversial figure behind it, people might still object to some of the technical decisions behind it. But I find it hard to argue against the idea. It is filling a niche by making alternative WMs like Hyprland more accessible.

> What is coding for the sake of coding? I don't think anyone does that. Its about solving puzzles, using your brain, learning by doing, creating things- none of that happens when you use llm coding tools.

Why do you think that? I do regular ol' coding at my day job and have been vibe coding some side projects. They both require using my brain and both require my input for something to be created. They are different, though.

> Instead all you're doing is creating more cheap mediocre throwaway crap just because you can.

It probably is these things but since I'm just building stuff for myself, it hardly matters.

I've written a lot of code and a lot of that has been doing roughly the same thing. It's not a mental challenge; it's a chore. Sometimes it is really gratifying to code and try to figure stuff out. Often times it is not. So when it comes to building something in my free time, I'd prefer to avoid that sort of mental friction and banal tasks just to start working on the actual problem. More so than that, I'm building tools for myself to make my life easier so I can spend it more on something else.

I ride an electric bike with pedal assist. Does that mean I'm not really bicycling? Some might say yes and that it defeats the point. To me it ensures that I pick the bicycle more because it reduces friction to do so. I know that if I encounter a hill that the pedal assist will help me up it and thus I use it more and the net benefit outweighs the downsides. I think it's the same thing here.

I don't take pride in the work that an LLM does for me but I will happily benefit from it. It's a tool.

I think there's a difference in using claude code at work to resolve issues or user stories which are patching existing software and already define what is trying to be solved and what the acceptance criteria is versus using claude code to build something from scratch, where you are acting as an architect.

It leaves more room for skill expression when you're making architectural decisions, defining scope, and designing the application.

When I was looking I found many full-sized folding bikes but they are solving a problem for an overlapping but different niche. They make it possible to fold and load it into a vehicle or make it more compact for storing at home, but they aren't very good at multi-modal commuting nor are they particularly compact. I remember someone with a folding Tern that struggled to carry it onto the train - it really isn't well suited for that.

This one in particular seems quite bad for it. Removing the tire and the folding mechanism designed to make it stable and stationary doesn't bode well for that use case. It really does seem to be designed only to be folded once you're done riding for the day and not intended for transporting it folded except for loading it into a trunk.

They are definitely prioritizing the ride quality over the foldability, compactness, or transportability. Bromptons try to balance it, which for me is a much better package, but for others, probably making too many compromises to ensure that it can meet those requirements.