This is a betrayal of trust by 1Password. Their customers didn't choose to pay thinking that their money would go to a tech right grifter's fund that exploits the work of others for marketing.
Good they don't deserve it, they will just use it to spout their politics and ban individuals for their political views from the repos and wikis. Just look at their petty little meltdown over X-Libre
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.
Omarchy ISO is downloaded 20000 times A DAY. It's in the top 3 distros now. Only very sad and delusional people hate its success. I pity them, but I don’t want them anywhere near me.
They've already said that they refuse to work with DHH, which is fine, but the Asahi Devs and Arch Linux Devs have let politics overtake their entire existance and I'm happy someone is finally changing the status quo and shaking things up.
Let money actually go to competant people and not leftists that will ban you from their entire ecosystem if you even slightly disagree with their politics.
I won’t repeat the numerous political blog posts he’s constantly posting these days for a so-called “tech only” guy.
Instead I’ll say that he’s currently doing a big podcast tour where he explicitly whines about how his employees pushed him to (he elides this part) remove a “funny list of customer names” on the grounds of said list being racially charged. And since he was “bullied” into doing that, he’s been on a tear lately declaring tech to be filled to the brim with political lunatics who just want to inject politics into everything. The precise thing that he’s still doing, years later.
It is a valid question, and the many, many answers to it are worth reading.
In short: he's made it very clear that he's a racist who doesn't like that there are non-white people living in London, doesn't like Roma, and seems to have a problem with non-white people in general.
Disliking most of the world is a good way to get most of the world to dislike you.
Since then, he also called for a pogrom against Romani people, in language that explicitly mirrored that which the Nazis used when calling for ethnic cleansing against the same group of people.
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.
No, I am sympathetic to his critics if that's what he is saying. I just don't see that in the article. But on the other hand, since this is an example of cultural replacement where the new folks happen to be disproportionately brown, this may just be a case of those who are passionate about the idea of racial equality getting a little incensed, which is understandable (laudable, even), but cultural replacement/disruption is a real and valid source of misery/desperation.
Your reading comprehension and political awareness needs a lot of work.
> cultural replacement/disruption is a real and valid source of misery/desperation
Not like this it isn’t. To the extent that there’s a valid complaint, it’s the fault of those who’ve been in power over the last few decades. To turn the blame on minorities is a classic rightist move, and it’s always cowardly, nasty, and wrong.
Since you’re happytoexplain, please explain to me what cultural replacement/disruption looks like in western countries. I can see it happening in countries like China with the Uighurs, in Bangladesh with the Rohingya, but I can’t see any actual “culture” erasure happening in Britain or Australia or the United States. I see plenty of cultural enrichment, but no erasure.
No need to be sarcastic and mock my username or my culture. I'm not asserting that you're an asshole or something because you don't agree that there is cultural disruption and/or replacement in London or parts of the US. The entire concept is subjective and highly experiential, despite (or because of?) the drama and trauma intrinsic to it. I will say though that elevating the definition to essentially require genocide minimizes reality.
Your username is self chosen. If you elect to be offended by people using it that’s on you. And like you, I’m not “asserting that you’re an asshole”. I’m also not “elevating the definition”. True cultural erasure involves the active banning and repression of cultural symbols (be they of language, dress, beliefs). If you have a different definition let’s hear it. Otherwise don’t put words in my mouth or project the chip on your own shoulder.
But this isn't happening. To cite someone with closer experience (who also does admit that the "migration issue in Britain is complicated and multi-layered") [0]:
> To all of that he adds a dash of Islamophobia, citing “Pakistani rape gangs” as one of the reasons for the unrest, repeating a weaponised trope borne from a long since discredited report from the Quilliam Foundation, an organisation with ties to both the the US Tea Party, and Tommy Robinson himself. A trope that exists despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of convicted child sex offenders are white men, with Asian men in fact under-represented.
People who want to be racist will find or invent any evidence necessary to dig themselves in deeper. There is no basis or validity to it. If there were, there would be no need to be so coy and indirect about it.
He explicitly says that nonwhite people feel alien and like they don't belong. He "heartwarming"ly embraces Tommy Robinson's white replacement marches advocating for forced "remigration" as a breath of fresh air against what he calls suicidal empathy. Must I show my work when adding 2 plus 2 or can we agree that the answer is 4?
>Must I show my work when adding 2 plus 2 or can we agree that the answer is 4?
This is arrogant in a damaging way. You should prefer to answer the asked question, since that would be an effective piece of information in this case (i.e. it's not a bait question, so it's not harmful to engage with).
The answers are present in the post we're discussing quite plainly without any reading between the lines necessary. I think the simplicity of the analogy is fitting. If not bait, there are few charitable explanations.
Commenter is, like me, mystified that reading comprehension can be that poor. Even without the linked post’s commentary, a plain reading of DHH’s original post should be enough to see exactly where he is politically. So to have to spell it out for you and others feels like we’re being taken for a ride.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
Dehumanization of an entire ethnic group by comparing them to animals. Use of violent rhetoric to forcibly ethnically cleanse a region.
There's a word for people who employ this rhetoric. Can you guess?
I know people don't like his politics, but the bigger issue to me is that 37signals removes manager titles from the low level people but not the high level people, yet they get the same work and duties. It's insulting.
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.
It’s definitely noticeable and he has ties to politically-aligned tech billionaires - for example, when about a third of Basecamp employees resigned, Marc Andressen kept them solvent:
it feels super weird, suddenly everyone on x uses omarchy and talks about how it "revolutionized personal computing". guess 37signals started losing money after dhh's white nationalist tirades.
Why is this succeeding while other OSS funding initiatives have failed? These companies were just waiting to be sure their money would go to a confirmed Nazi?
It's vice-signaling. They want to make sure that the industry knows that calling for a pogrom against the Romani people is the kind of malevolence that will be rewarded.
I think Wilhoit’s law[1] is also a major factor: these guys appear to have taken things like codes of conduct as a personal affront because in many cases it was the first time penalties started being applied to people they identified with as fellow in-group members. You can see this in lots of cases - e.g. compare SV elite reactions to the alleged shoplifting epidemic to the way the same people feel about cheating on taxes or misleading investors for orders of magnitude more money.
1. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition … There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect”
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.
> 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.
I disagree with the parent's wording and agree that the whole "people are free to say what they want" thing is generally not a compelling point in internet arguments, but there is a distinction you are omitting. People aren't just disagreeing with DHH's politics, they're implying that his project shouldn't be financed because of his politics. In that light, your counter-point isn't as applicable, since it's not symmetrical to what the parent is criticizing (regardless of whether you believe his politics are worthy of black-listing his work).
"DHH's politics" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. He has most recently called for citizens of western countries to be expelled on the basis of race. So while it's not exactly symmetrical, the people objecting to companies funding his project are not the only ones using their speech to put pressure on others.
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
Most likely also technofascists and other oddballs helping out their technofascist buddies. One of the other big sponsors:
In July 2026, Lütke expressed support for setting voting rights proportional to the level of income tax paid by a citizen, with those paying no income tax being stripped of their voting rights and others gaining one additional vote for each $100,000 paid in income tax up to five votes per person.
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?
>why is Omarchy getting funding that's more in line with a distro that already has its own infrastructure?
A few reasons spring to mind but I'll focus on the one I care about: It's damn good.
I've used Linux for over 20 years and it really stands out. Nothing has ever been as easy and fast to install and dropped me into a more polished, simple yet productive environment immediately.
I think the tiling VM will limit its appeal, and hope to see projects inspired by Omarchy put the same level of detail, pruning, curation and polish to Gnome and KDE-based distros.
> 'custom dotfiles and a way to apply them to a fresh system'
Latest Omarchy 4 is a full ISO installer, with a quickshell-based desktop - not scripts, their own system apps, taskbar, notifications, etc. I'm failing to see how it is less of a distro than most, and the fact it doesn't try to customize the kernel or filesystem is a plus for me. May be time to take another look at it.
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?
Omarchy does do that. They host their own packaging servers, which they keep intentionally a month behind Arch's to catch broken packages. They ship a custom kernel. They have a small AUR-like extra repository as well.
> Why Omarchy?
Because DHH has friends. It's not anything more special than that.
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.
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].
Yes is the only valid answer. The reason is that there's nothing remarkable about Omarchy for it to deserve a fraction of the hype it gets.
Even calling Omarchy a distro seems to be a stretch. The best description I're read is that it is a Hyprland setup for Arch. As far as what a Linux distro can be, this is pretty mediocre. The sort of thing that would get an HN thread, see minor traction, and take the backseat.
But, quite a lot of people seem interested in hyping it. I suspect the reason is just because the dude behind it is not shy about being an ethnonationalist, "great replacement theory" asshole, etc.
Quite a few people here are very fond of those talking points. Thinking about brown people being ethnically cleansed makes them all tingly inside. So, they really want to talk about Omarchy as a proxy.
They ship a custom kernel, have their own packaging servers, ship their own installer, an installable ISO, and ship a bunch of custom UI. That's a distro, all right. Not a foundational one a la Debian or Arch, but that's never been a requirement seeing how things like Ubuntu, Cachy etc. exist and are called distros without issue.
Omarchy started as a pile of dotfiles a year ago. It isn't that anymore, and DHH's intended direction is towards a fully independent foundation distro.
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.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
Here’s another, referring to the roughly ⅔ of London residents who aren’t white:
> London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits. In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third.
the "different thoughts" in question are that certain groups of people are animals and should be imprisoned or ethnically cleansed, so yeah, that's firmly in nazi territory.
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.
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)
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?
reply