They just founded the Foundation, and the money has not been allocated yet. But Hyperland, Quickshell, and some others already got 3 year sponsorship deals.
The AUR maintainers refused the cooperation and the money. So they will start working on new package management for Omarchy.
My guess, though, is that most of the money will go to DHH's obsession with Macs and anti-Apple stance (porting Linux to work on M architecture), either by directly funding Asahi Linux or by forking it to speed up development.
I can't quite put my finger on it but this rush to astroturf Omarchy just has bad vibes all around. DHH has been on a politician-level campaign to fund/promote what seems like a fun nerd project. Call me paranoid but it all just comes across as dubious.
There is this movie "Mickey Blue Eyes" where Hugh Grant play an auctioneer whose girlfriend is the daughter of a mafia member.
The boss of the mafia org then forces the auctioneer to offer worthless paintings and forces various people to bid high. The paintings are just required so that something exchanges hands.
This is much of the software industry in a nutshell, except that no coercion is required. Just something needs to exchange hands.
The mafia needs money to change hands to launder it. What money is being laundered in software? Do you think anyone in the ecosystem is sitting on piles of dirty money?
1Password can't even include ARM builds of their app in their existing packages [1]. I am highly skeptical of anything DHH (David Heinemeier Hansson) is the benevolent dictator of, and for good reason [2]. Perhaps that money would be spent better elsewhere in the ecosystem.
It raises the question: what is a distro since many distros are customizations of other distros. What makes Ubuntu a distro and not just a customization of Debian?
The video above is in inline with my opinion. If you ship an ISO (so users can install your distro directly without installing another distro first) and have control over the packages then you are a distro. Apparently, Omarchy has its own ISO and it's own mirror of the arch package repo so it is a distro by that definition.
Steamos is a mirrored snapshot of arch (like omarchy) + bash and python scripts (like omarchy) + their own shell (steam running on top of gamescope for steamos and a custom quickshell based one running on top of hyprland for omarchy) + modified upstream kernel (both steamos and omarchy)
At the time Ubuntu started, Debian's old installer (boot-floppies) was legendary for its unfriendliness, and the new all-singing, all-dancing replacement was a mammoth endeavour and a long way off completion. Ubuntu provided a simple, friendly installer that covered only the limited set of the most common use cases, but was a dramatic improvement for new users.
They also employed a bunch of Debian developers, and gave them space to continue their work for Debian. It wasn't all smooth sailing, but Debian was stronger as a result of their contributions right from the very start.
Now, maybe Omarchy are providing a similarly major contribution to Arch - but, if they are, they've kept quiet about it so far.
Hyperland being funded for 3 years benefits all distros and users that rely on it. The same goes for Quickshell. And my guess is that this is only the beginning. They will support any project that Omarchy is built on. They even reached out to AUR maintainers to support them financially and build better, more stable infrastructure for any distro that depends on AUR, but they refused.
Controversial because of... what? Personal politics? Project choices? If the former, grow up and accept that the time of slavishly following the narrative is coming to an end, that free speech means people are free to voice their own thoughts and that you not agreeing is interesting only to you. If the latter, yes, I understand that his rather fanboyish approach to generative models is controversial and only time will tell whether he is right to be so upbeat. Listening to the 5+ hour interview he did with Lex Friedman makes it clear he thinks the die is cast and generative models are the way to go for now.
> If the former, grow up and accept that the time of slavishly following the narrative is coming to an end, that free speech means people are free to voice their own thoughts and that you not agreeing is interesting only to you.
Consider taking your own advice here? Free speech means people are also free to object when other people with whom they disagree politically receive corporate funding. And likewise, you not agreeing with them is only interesting to you.
It's especially weird considering DHH is heavily disliked by much of the Linux community for his political beliefs, and association with him is heavily frowned upon.
Over at KDE, we've seen some criticism for taking sponsorship money from Framework laptops because they sent him a laptop once.
I must believe on some level these sponsors are jumping on the bandwagon to show off how in they are with desktop Linux, now that it's slowly arriving in the mainstream, while possibly rather demonstrating their obliviousness.
The really strange thing about the criticism directed towards Framework is they simply sponsored the Hyprland window manager, not the Omarchy OS, but because Omarchy uses Hyprland that got conflated as funding Omarchy.
They keep sending DHH hardware and at one point they were sponsoring his Rails conference too. People backed off on the Hyprland sponsorship but Framework doubled down on DHH.
The power of contacts, and looking at the initial list it seems it’s a bunch of founders whose startups succeed using Ruby on Rails, so I guess yeah… they owe some to DHH
Its for a foundation where the Linux distro is their flagship product. Much like Mozilla or the Wikipedia foundation. It looks like they're also funding artists[1] and downstream projects[2].
Red Hat: billions, Canonical/Ubuntu, SUSE: hundreds of millions, Debian: one million/year. It's not that unusual for a distro to get funding - just a different scale here due to their connections.
Their foundation is now sponsoring Hyprland, mise and quickshell development, probably other projects to come.
There's a distinct difference between the contributions of Debian and that of Omarchy.
Debian is a foundational distro, it's a giant with huge populations standing on its shoulders. It shoulders a large ongoing burden, security guarantees, some of the largest maintained repos of any distro, a large amount of infrastructure.
Omarchy is a script and some dotfiles. Happy for them, of course, but it's odd. Omarchy just isn't doing that much.
Many distros don't bother with any of that. Calamares is a fine off-the-shelf installer. GRUB has fine defaults. Desktops have fine defaults. And many distros use those. Custom dotfiles and a way to apply them to a fresh system doesn't make a distro.
That's, truly, completely fine for a fledgling project, that's how many start before expanding beyond that... But why is Omarchy getting funding that's more in line with a distro that already has its own infrastructure?
You realize Omarchy just started a couple of months ago, right? The founder himself put his money and time where his mouth is.
Most of the thousands of distros are just a collection of config changes in GNOME, etc. There is no fundamental change in 99% of Linux distros. It's just different configurations of different tools, with the main differences being the package manager and window manager they use, plus their configs. Everything else is exactly the same.
That's a very simplistic and end-user-oriented view of what a distro is. Somebody hosts the infrastructure that Omarchy runs on. Somebody maintains the packages and applies specialized patches and communicates upstream. Omarchy doesn't do that. And that's fine.
Plenty of distros start out at that level. But those fledgling distros don't get these kinds of sponsorships. Why Omarchy?
It appears to be an opinionated, batteries included distro/OS using a tiling window manager, and it's targeted at Mac/Windows power users. It's a niche target and time will tell whether it pays off.
I think that's the main reason why Omarchy gets talked about so much.
In large parts of the internet, open bigotry is thankfully still socially unacceptable. But when bigotry is wrapped up in a software project like this, it gives people posting/upvoting/sharing a level of plausible deniability.
...because everyone I do not agree with is a Nazi? Grow up, child, discover the world and notice it is full of people who think different thoughts from you.
hn crowd has always been favorable to trump because at the end of the day they want lower taxes, but i think a few other ideas have been smuggled along with that
(because you always have to explain the joke on this site, everyone was warned about these fascists before and during their rise to power, and this site supports them because the obvious reason https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-026-02862-9)
Do people really think DHH is a white supremacist? I'd love to see a shred of supporting evidence that amounts to more than a disagreement about rapid immigration, integration, and cultural identity.
Didn't John Cleese already explain the difference between a culturalist and a racist?
It seems like a useful distinction (that, yes, is very easy to hide behind if your real opinion is just "I hate people based on skin color", but I have no way of knowing what's in Cleese's heart).
Clear may be a racist or he may not be. His speaking out against cultural practices has no bearing on whether he is or isn't and neither you nor I are any the wiser on whether Cleese is a racist or not and it isn't even relevant in the context of his stance on cultural differences and preferences.
This is the only thing I've read about DHH's controversial opinions, so take this with a huge grain of salt. Maybe I'll change my mind tomorrow:
Those DHH quotes do not seem nearly as bad as I thought they were going to. In fact, they don't seem bad at all. One may vigorously disagree with them, I just mean that they are not clearly immoral. Of course, that's only if you take them at face value. There could be darker or more crack-pot opinions behind them, but that specter is hard to avoid with this topic.
The author's arguments are weak or tangential, and their conclusion seems overly dramatic. As a first impression, this puts me in the mindset of, "people are overreacting to DHH's opinions because it's related to immigration/race/culture." Again, maybe I'll change my mind, but as a first impression, that's what this article tells me.
So you think it's entirely moral to label only white British people as "native Brits"? To speak warmly of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's ("Tommy Robinson") marches? Unless you are also comfortably on the far right, I'm at a loss.
Wanting to forcibly eject all brown people isn't enough to call someone radically racist? That's not a middle-of-the-road, agree-to-disagree kind of stance.
Good for the Linux ecosystem. People forget they are not bound to install it, if you are so sore from a blog post just use any of the other hundreds of distros out there.
Obama giving himself medal dot jpeg
How much money is going upstream? Like hyprland and arch? Omarchy is basically just a script all the work is being done by otherpeople.
They just founded the Foundation, and the money has not been allocated yet. But Hyperland, Quickshell, and some others already got 3 year sponsorship deals.
The AUR maintainers refused the cooperation and the money. So they will start working on new package management for Omarchy.
My guess, though, is that most of the money will go to DHH's obsession with Macs and anti-Apple stance (porting Linux to work on M architecture), either by directly funding Asahi Linux or by forking it to speed up development.
I highly doubt the current crop of Asahi people would take money from DHH.
Yup, that's why I think they will fork it.
...by other people and by AI, so by other people indirectly.
That describes most distributions, even the base ones like Debian and Fedora.
I can't quite put my finger on it but this rush to astroturf Omarchy just has bad vibes all around. DHH has been on a politician-level campaign to fund/promote what seems like a fun nerd project. Call me paranoid but it all just comes across as dubious.
At a minimum its DHH trying to launder his reputation
There is this movie "Mickey Blue Eyes" where Hugh Grant play an auctioneer whose girlfriend is the daughter of a mafia member.
The boss of the mafia org then forces the auctioneer to offer worthless paintings and forces various people to bid high. The paintings are just required so that something exchanges hands.
This is much of the software industry in a nutshell, except that no coercion is required. Just something needs to exchange hands.
The mafia needs money to change hands to launder it. What money is being laundered in software? Do you think anyone in the ecosystem is sitting on piles of dirty money?
Life is easier if you don't take any analogy, especially humorous ones, 100% literally.
I'm sure you can come up with scenarios where A wants clean money to go to B but still prefers a pretext.
In this case the now 12M (Brian Armstrong now also "donated") could be for AI and right-wing promotion for example.
1Password can't even include ARM builds of their app in their existing packages [1]. I am highly skeptical of anything DHH (David Heinemeier Hansson) is the benevolent dictator of, and for good reason [2]. Perhaps that money would be spent better elsewhere in the ecosystem.
1. https://support.1password.com/install-linux/#arm-or-other-di... 2. https://thelibre.news/lets-talk-about-dhh/
$12.6 millions for a Linux distro?
Not even a distro, it’s a customization of Arch and Hyoerland.
Hope they redirect some of their fundings to them!
It raises the question: what is a distro since many distros are customizations of other distros. What makes Ubuntu a distro and not just a customization of Debian?
https://youtu.be/yIA4idIdY_k
The video above is in inline with my opinion. If you ship an ISO (so users can install your distro directly without installing another distro first) and have control over the packages then you are a distro. Apparently, Omarchy has its own ISO and it's own mirror of the arch package repo so it is a distro by that definition.
So like SteamOS?
SteamOS runs its own infrastructure and is more than a static set of scripts and dotfiles on top of an existing distro.
Steamos is a mirrored snapshot of arch (like omarchy) + bash and python scripts (like omarchy) + their own shell (steam running on top of gamescope for steamos and a custom quickshell based one running on top of hyprland for omarchy) + modified upstream kernel (both steamos and omarchy)
Yeah and Ubuntu just started as customized Debian
That's... not true.
At the time Ubuntu started, Debian's old installer (boot-floppies) was legendary for its unfriendliness, and the new all-singing, all-dancing replacement was a mammoth endeavour and a long way off completion. Ubuntu provided a simple, friendly installer that covered only the limited set of the most common use cases, but was a dramatic improvement for new users.
They also employed a bunch of Debian developers, and gave them space to continue their work for Debian. It wasn't all smooth sailing, but Debian was stronger as a result of their contributions right from the very start.
Now, maybe Omarchy are providing a similarly major contribution to Arch - but, if they are, they've kept quiet about it so far.
> distro
It's more like a set of dotfiles, but yeah.
Why are people complaining about money going into FOSS?
I believe it's more about money ending up in an overhyped vibecoded Bash mess maintained by a very controversial figure. And that's putting it mildly.
Hyperland being funded for 3 years benefits all distros and users that rely on it. The same goes for Quickshell. And my guess is that this is only the beginning. They will support any project that Omarchy is built on. They even reached out to AUR maintainers to support them financially and build better, more stable infrastructure for any distro that depends on AUR, but they refused.
One controversial project supporting another controversial project. Wonder how and why that happened.
I am inclined to believe everyone sane will distance themselves from it. Just like GNOME did.
Controversial because of... what? Personal politics? Project choices? If the former, grow up and accept that the time of slavishly following the narrative is coming to an end, that free speech means people are free to voice their own thoughts and that you not agreeing is interesting only to you. If the latter, yes, I understand that his rather fanboyish approach to generative models is controversial and only time will tell whether he is right to be so upbeat. Listening to the 5+ hour interview he did with Lex Friedman makes it clear he thinks the die is cast and generative models are the way to go for now.
> If the former, grow up and accept that the time of slavishly following the narrative is coming to an end, that free speech means people are free to voice their own thoughts and that you not agreeing is interesting only to you.
Consider taking your own advice here? Free speech means people are also free to object when other people with whom they disagree politically receive corporate funding. And likewise, you not agreeing with them is only interesting to you.
Because it doesn't seem to be actually going to FOSS
You're going to have to clarify that rather bold statement.
You see
https://git.outfoxxed.me/quickshell/quickshell (GNU LGPL 3)
https://github.com/hyprwm/Hyprland (BSD)
https://github.com/jdx/mise (MIT)
are not really foss
It’s who the money is going to in FOSS.
What exactly is the Mozilla Foundation developing these days? What is their budget?
You'd think a foundation raking in half a billion per year could accomplish more.
The random selection of people chipping in for this is so weird. Do they owe DHH a favor or something?
It's especially weird considering DHH is heavily disliked by much of the Linux community for his political beliefs, and association with him is heavily frowned upon.
Over at KDE, we've seen some criticism for taking sponsorship money from Framework laptops because they sent him a laptop once.
I must believe on some level these sponsors are jumping on the bandwagon to show off how in they are with desktop Linux, now that it's slowly arriving in the mainstream, while possibly rather demonstrating their obliviousness.
The really strange thing about the criticism directed towards Framework is they simply sponsored the Hyprland window manager, not the Omarchy OS, but because Omarchy uses Hyprland that got conflated as funding Omarchy.
They keep sending DHH hardware and at one point they were sponsoring his Rails conference too. People backed off on the Hyprland sponsorship but Framework doubled down on DHH.
The power of contacts, and looking at the initial list it seems it’s a bunch of founders whose startups succeed using Ruby on Rails, so I guess yeah… they owe some to DHH
but, but, the people who get a residency receive 2.5k per month!
Its for a foundation where the Linux distro is their flagship product. Much like Mozilla or the Wikipedia foundation. It looks like they're also funding artists[1] and downstream projects[2].
[1] https://omarchy.org/air/
[2] https://omarchy.org/sponsorships/
Red Hat: billions, Canonical/Ubuntu, SUSE: hundreds of millions, Debian: one million/year. It's not that unusual for a distro to get funding - just a different scale here due to their connections.
Their foundation is now sponsoring Hyprland, mise and quickshell development, probably other projects to come.
There's a distinct difference between the contributions of Debian and that of Omarchy.
Debian is a foundational distro, it's a giant with huge populations standing on its shoulders. It shoulders a large ongoing burden, security guarantees, some of the largest maintained repos of any distro, a large amount of infrastructure.
Omarchy is a script and some dotfiles. Happy for them, of course, but it's odd. Omarchy just isn't doing that much.
I was not comparing them.
I think the "set of dotfiles" was called Omakub. Omarchy is a distro like any other - custom installer, bootloader, desktop and WM setup, etc.
Many distros don't bother with any of that. Calamares is a fine off-the-shelf installer. GRUB has fine defaults. Desktops have fine defaults. And many distros use those. Custom dotfiles and a way to apply them to a fresh system doesn't make a distro.
That's, truly, completely fine for a fledgling project, that's how many start before expanding beyond that... But why is Omarchy getting funding that's more in line with a distro that already has its own infrastructure?
You realize Omarchy just started a couple of months ago, right? The founder himself put his money and time where his mouth is.
Most of the thousands of distros are just a collection of config changes in GNOME, etc. There is no fundamental change in 99% of Linux distros. It's just different configurations of different tools, with the main differences being the package manager and window manager they use, plus their configs. Everything else is exactly the same.
That's a very simplistic and end-user-oriented view of what a distro is. Somebody hosts the infrastructure that Omarchy runs on. Somebody maintains the packages and applies specialized patches and communicates upstream. Omarchy doesn't do that. And that's fine.
Plenty of distros start out at that level. But those fledgling distros don't get these kinds of sponsorships. Why Omarchy?
Ubuntu wouldn't be Ubuntu we know today if Mark hadn't put his own money into it ($10m initially, oh, the irony); the same goes for Omarchy.
DHH has certainly put a lot of tokens in. It's not clear that he's put much thought into it.
What services does Omarchy provide?
It appears to be an opinionated, batteries included distro/OS using a tiling window manager, and it's targeted at Mac/Windows power users. It's a niche target and time will tell whether it pays off.
I'm asking about professional services. The thing people pay all those companies they listed for.
I wish DHH even had pretended a solidified use of the funds.
Beyond my moral objections and public security concerns, I saw more forethought from ClearLinux by Intel around the same maturity point.
Hype doesn't make an OS appealing to me.
I don't really understand how a "Linux but for vibecoding" would even be that generally appealing.
I don’t know why we see Omarchy almost every day on the front page. Do people really want to use a distro from a white supremacist?
I raised my eyebrows at this statement, but I had forgotten that blog post where he griped about the UK becoming less white.
Or I'm sorry Dave where he talks about being mad the LLM won't translate murderous genocidal screeds to Italian for him.
HN is generally attracted to "success", not integrity.
I think that's the main reason why Omarchy gets talked about so much.
In large parts of the internet, open bigotry is thankfully still socially unacceptable. But when bigotry is wrapped up in a software project like this, it gives people posting/upvoting/sharing a level of plausible deniability.
Twitter's still pretty popular.
Linux embraces diversity. A vibecoded Nazi distro is just another Linux flavor. There's some irony in all this.
Yet here they don't spend that much time talking about the other gazillion distros out there this days...
Which part of omarchy the distro is nazi?
...because everyone I do not agree with is a Nazi? Grow up, child, discover the world and notice it is full of people who think different thoughts from you.
Because people who want to forcibly eject, imprison, and torture brown people are Nazis. Evil exists. We can call it by name.
hn crowd has always been favorable to trump because at the end of the day they want lower taxes, but i think a few other ideas have been smuggled along with that
"smuggled"
https://www.fastcompany.com/91217605/new-york-times-editoria...
(because you always have to explain the joke on this site, everyone was warned about these fascists before and during their rise to power, and this site supports them because the obvious reason https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-026-02862-9)
Do people really think DHH is a white supremacist? I'd love to see a shred of supporting evidence that amounts to more than a disagreement about rapid immigration, integration, and cultural identity.
Didn't John Cleese already explain the difference between a culturalist and a racist?
“Culturalism” is just Cleese’s attempt to package racism behind a pretty name. John Cleese is a racist.
It seems like a useful distinction (that, yes, is very easy to hide behind if your real opinion is just "I hate people based on skin color", but I have no way of knowing what's in Cleese's heart).
Clear may be a racist or he may not be. His speaking out against cultural practices has no bearing on whether he is or isn't and neither you nor I are any the wiser on whether Cleese is a racist or not and it isn't even relevant in the context of his stance on cultural differences and preferences.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Why such a dislike towards DHH? More people using Linux surely is a good thing.
Edit: I was curious and it was a genuine question, not sure why all the down-votes.
The extremely valid criticism is not hard to find.
https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...
This is the only thing I've read about DHH's controversial opinions, so take this with a huge grain of salt. Maybe I'll change my mind tomorrow:
Those DHH quotes do not seem nearly as bad as I thought they were going to. In fact, they don't seem bad at all. One may vigorously disagree with them, I just mean that they are not clearly immoral. Of course, that's only if you take them at face value. There could be darker or more crack-pot opinions behind them, but that specter is hard to avoid with this topic.
The author's arguments are weak or tangential, and their conclusion seems overly dramatic. As a first impression, this puts me in the mindset of, "people are overreacting to DHH's opinions because it's related to immigration/race/culture." Again, maybe I'll change my mind, but as a first impression, that's what this article tells me.
So you think it's entirely moral to label only white British people as "native Brits"? To speak warmly of Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's ("Tommy Robinson") marches? Unless you are also comfortably on the far right, I'm at a loss.
Wanting to forcibly eject all brown people isn't enough to call someone radically racist? That's not a middle-of-the-road, agree-to-disagree kind of stance.
Good for the Linux ecosystem. People forget they are not bound to install it, if you are so sore from a blog post just use any of the other hundreds of distros out there.