[yuters]

You're suggesting that because the system doesn't offer a standalone recipe to setup Hyprland, implying that everything else it does include and does better than anything else is not a standalone package also, it's silly and amateurish and they don't know what they are doing. You can try and convince me all you want, but that is not a point of view I could ever get behind, sorry.

[cauch]

I did not say "despite having a fix to hyprland, they don't offer a standalone recipe", I'm referring to the whole behavior: how it is presented, how it is hyped, how there is its own conference, its own merchandising, ... When it comes to hyprland, there is this childish attitude of "people do what they want, extract it from the source yourself" when people are legitimately surprised on how the thing was handled.

If it was presented as "Hey, we know it's just some scripts, we don't do the same kind of work that traditional distributions do. We still call it a distribution, but don't hesitate to support Arch instead who is doing the hard work for us", it would be different. But it is apparently not what is done (based on what I've read on the subject in the meanwhile).

What I'm saying is obviously not as simplistic as how you summarized it. It looks like you are just upset that someone may see bad signs in the way this distribution (or whatever one wants to call it) is handled. That's fine, I'm not forcing you to not use it, the same way I'm not forcing anyone to not use anything that is overhyped.

[yuters]

> I did not say "despite having a fix to hyprland, they don't offer a standalone recipe",

You said this:

> Did dhh provide a recipe to install hyprland properly without having to install a full "distribution"? (I don't know, it's a real question)

> It feels very strange (and wrong) to me: if there is difficulties in installing something, try to help people instead of packaging the solution with other things that are not related.

And this:

> If indeed dhh helped find a way to install hyprland more easily but failed to also provide a standalone recipe, that does not sound like a good practice to me.

I understand your overall point now that you took the time to explain a bit more, and it is valid criticism. But it is not "obvious" what you were saying. Based on the replies you've got, I see that I'm not alone to think this. You might want to look inward into why that is.

Not upset by the way, just responding in kind.

[cauch]

The number of reactions was pretty small for Hacker News, and the silent majority probably did not react because they did not have a biased reading of my comments and there is therefore nothing to react to.

I don't believe it was difficult to understand, and you are probably not a good person to estimate if it was the case or not (of course if something is misunderstood by 0.1% of the people, these persons who misunderstood it will say "well, it was difficult to understand", it would be more convincing if this judgement was coming from someone who did understand it from the start).

I also think that there is a difference in culture. If you have enough experience to notice that Omarchy is overhyped, then you probably also have some experience thinking of what makes a reliable distributions and so on, and where I was getting at probably seemed simple and obvious. Inversely, if it's not the case, what I'm saying are concepts you did not really think or care about, and therefore it may be new or confusing, even if it is correctly explained.