Forking would mean the main developers does not work on it. They would need to work on their own. Do giving money will ensure the project stays up (in theory). Forking does not solve the issues you have with the mainline project automatically.
The only issue anyone seems to be taking with the main line project is the dev. Half of his design choices are completely uncontroversial on the other half would never generate this much fucking heat.
That’s unfortunate that you are not informed. The best part is, that even DHH himself agrees that Omarchy has lot of bad security issues. His argument is that these get reported and fixed, so it will be secure someday (so his argument, but ignoring that vibe coding is never secure). Here is a part of the interview with Brodie in YouTube (about 10 minutes): https://youtu.be/M8gVXNlZFFg
https://youtu.be/DYu9391lVP0 another video from Brodie, this time talking about an issue where the default configuration was set to allow any remote control of Kitty without asking the user.
https://lemmy.ml/post/52085916 Omarchy: Any User Process Can Escalate to Root (with default Docker password, that is no password)
And the list goes on and on. These are not just security issues… these are dumb issues that should not have been there. Its incompetence and negligence. Every software has issues and bugs and security issues. But why don’t the other distributions have this many dumb issues like these? And it won’t get better, because its heavily vibe coded.
Actual useful info, very cool. How interesting it might have been if this were the subject of the post, but sadly it seems like this is secondary to arguments about personality.
I agree with you. But its important that there are two different of topics of issues, one of them is focused in this article. And I don’t think it is unreasonable, because it is focusing on a topic with many information. Although I’m not a fan of some parts of it and the overall presentation and tone.
The argument, without ambiguity, is essentially that because the developer is morally tainted you should not use the software. That just doesn’t follow, and the argument itself distracts from taints any real concerns about the product itself.
What are they getting for their money? Fork it if it’s so good.
Forking would mean the main developers does not work on it. They would need to work on their own. Do giving money will ensure the project stays up (in theory). Forking does not solve the issues you have with the mainline project automatically.
The only issue anyone seems to be taking with the main line project is the dev. Half of his design choices are completely uncontroversial on the other half would never generate this much fucking heat.
Eh no, there are two big issues with Omarchy: a) political issues with the dev, b) many big, dumb and very dangerous security issues.
It is really funny that I have no idea what security issues there are with the software, because everybody seems to be concerned with anything but.
That’s unfortunate that you are not informed. The best part is, that even DHH himself agrees that Omarchy has lot of bad security issues. His argument is that these get reported and fixed, so it will be secure someday (so his argument, but ignoring that vibe coding is never secure). Here is a part of the interview with Brodie in YouTube (about 10 minutes): https://youtu.be/M8gVXNlZFFg
And the list goes on and on. These are not just security issues… these are dumb issues that should not have been there. Its incompetence and negligence. Every software has issues and bugs and security issues. But why don’t the other distributions have this many dumb issues like these? And it won’t get better, because its heavily vibe coded.
So I hope you are informed now.
Actual useful info, very cool. How interesting it might have been if this were the subject of the post, but sadly it seems like this is secondary to arguments about personality.
I agree with you. But its important that there are two different of topics of issues, one of them is focused in this article. And I don’t think it is unreasonable, because it is focusing on a topic with many information. Although I’m not a fan of some parts of it and the overall presentation and tone.
My complaint is that the argument from OP is bad.
The argument, without ambiguity, is essentially that because the developer is morally tainted you should not use the software. That just doesn’t follow, and the argument itself distracts from taints any real concerns about the product itself.