14 years on Linux. 4 on macOS. I've switched so often that every new 'revolutionary' Linux distribution makes me roll my eyes. You've probably felt that too, the hype, the disappointment. So when Omarchy showed up on my radar, backed by BaseCamp and promising an "Omakase" style Linux desktop, my initial response was excitement with mixed emotions.
Background: Linux, macOS and why Omarchy
Back in 2007, I was knee-deep in Linux. Different flavors, endless late-night dotfile hacks. If you’ve ever spent hours just trying to make your terminal look right, you know the thrill. From 2014 to 2018, I made the switch to macOS, not because I fell out of love with Linux, but out of curiosity. The aesthetics were undeniably polished, and they worked out well until I had my reasons.
For someone who spends time working with servers and virtual machines in the cloud, using Linux as the primary OS, makes sense. It eliminated that mental context switching between development environments. When I moved back to Linux in 2018 with an XPS machine, the lightness of XFCE felt like coming home (I used it for next 4 years). I even tried Pop_OS for a while. Something is compelling about a company (System76) actually maintaining its own Linux flavor when you use the dGPU by default, and its power management works.
But then life happened. Last year, I reluctantly switched back to macOS, and it wasn't about preference; it was about practicality. My work involves constant meetings, presentations, and the dreaded "can you present to the room?" moments. Ever tried connecting a Linux laptop to a random projector? The audio dies. Scaling breaks. Suddenly you’re the one holding up the whole meeting. I’ve been that person. More times than I’d like to admit.
Why does Linux continue to struggle on desktops?
The Linux desktop has been "almost ready" for two decades. I've seen multiple OS chase the macOS-like aesthetic, and witnessed countless distributions claim they've finally solved desktop Linux's fundamental problems, which should work just out of the box.
Some of them do as well, but the majority of the time they don't. And Omarchy doesn't yet. But if you are a Professional Software engineer who's okay with rough edges and happy to trade them for customization. You will like Omarchy.
It is an opinionated OS from David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH), creator of Ruby on Rails. Choice overload is a thing, and most users want something that gets the job done without needing to tweak everything to upkeep. Omarchy does that.
I am always on the lookout for light-weight Linux environments. This one has my interest from initial days, but I also had to be cautious about its impact on my day-to-day workflow.
Anyway, I decided to give it a try because why not? I have read about Omarchy for two months, and my frank assessment to date is: promising, flawed, and not for everyone.
What works (and works well in Omarchy)
Initially, Omarchy was not a Linux distribution but a bunch of configuration scripts on top of Arch Linux. The project now provides an ISO from its 2.0 release that's almost too simple to get started.
Unlike Omakub, which requires installing and configuring a fresh Ubuntu installation with a one-liner bash, Omarchy is an opinionated Linux distribution on Arch Linux with Hyprland configuration scripts. One gets the update via a Rails-inspired migration system rather than traditional package management. You can go back to previous snapshots, which is cool IMO.
I like DHH's taste because of his simplicity, and Omarchy does reflect that. Omarchy takes a different angle. Think of it as an ‘Omakase’ meal, the chef decides, you enjoy. Less choice overload, more curated taste. And if you’re tired of endlessly tweaking, that’s a relief.
Hyprland tiling and workflow
Everything comes pre-set up. The Hyprland-driven configuration is really slick, and the visual decisions feel deliberate rather than fortuitous.
People have customized configurations from barebones through the use of Hyprland + Sway to be able to have flexibility, specifically for distros like Arch. The window tiling is great at improving workflow. The ricing in Linux is a thing. It is used to imply a user is customizing their system interface, desktop icons, or panels. The focus is on aesthetics, functionality, and modularity. Omarchy hits the sweet spot for all three.
I've always gravitated toward tiling window managers for this reason. On macOS, I was using Yabai with custom configurations, trying to recreate that vim-like workflow. That is, not that tiling per se is for everyone (it isn't for the majority), but Hyprland's tiling removes the typical hurdles.
Key-bindings and keyboard-first setup
The key-bindings menu is my favorite. No messing with config files or memorizing key-bindings. It just operates predictably. It also gives you the scope to customize the Hyprland setup with ease.
As an engineer, I like the Keyboard-First philosophy. Here's something I learned early in my career: keyboard shortcuts over mouse usage aren’t just about looking cool, they’re about compound productivity gains. Yes, there's an initial cognitive load learning the bindings, but that effort pays dividends throughout your career. It's like compound interest for your efficiency. I invest heavily in learning key-bindings and like to operate my computer with the keyboard as much as possible.
Developer tooling with Docker and languages
The development experience is rock-solid. Abstracting the installation of the tool chain works without much hassle with Docker and language stack installations. Packaging is less chaotic than native installation with Arch, though possibly that's recency bias.
Design, theming and TUI installers
The average persona of a Omarchy user is of a software professional with experience using personal computers. The themes are beautiful. They're carefully considered design choices. The aesthetic choices matter too. We spend 8-12 hours a day looking at these screens. A well-designed environment isn't vanity; it's reducing cognitive friction and making your workspace genuinely pleasant to inhabit.
The TUI (Terminal User Interface) installations are handy; they're practical workflow improvements.
The handbook alone is worth the price of admission. Instead of scattered wiki pages and forum posts, you get comprehensive documentation covering everything from key-bindings to bash customization. As someone who's spent way too many hours hunting down that one specific configuration snippet, this level of polish is refreshing!
Security defaults and disk encryption
In terms of security, the installation does disk encryption by default. This is a good practice as security does not come naturally to many developers. Omarchy maintains its own packages and a mirror. It relies on Arch's own core repository and package repository.
Omarchy limitations and known issues
Arch purists will roll their eyes, it feels heavy. But here’s the thing: I stripped out LibreOffice and Signal in minutes. If you’ve ever trimmed down an install, you know the joy of making the distribution yours again.
Single-user setup and multi-OS caveats
Currently, the machine supports single-user setups with full disk encryption. If you're running shared development machines or need multi-user support, this isn't the solution.
Multi-monitor and projector support
Those presentation and projector issues I mentioned? They're still there. Linux desktop compatibility with multiple monitors can be a challenge, making it difficult for users. I prefer using monitors at home and in my office setup, even with the laptop lid closed. Detecting the laptop screen by itself is a problem.
Folks who run multiple OS on a machine will have a hard time doing parallel installations. I have used single-machine multi-OS systems for years, so it's not a relatable problem to me.
Updates, migration system and longevity
One concern will be maintenance and upgrade paths. Although the flavor is nascent, it has gained significant attention with the recent updates. The backing of DHH gives credibility and resources, but what if priorities change? The migration system is clever, but it's not the battle-tested versioning you get with major distributions. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, something one should be cognizant about.
How will it go forward? Only time will tell.
Reality check: apps, screen share and hardware
But tell us what doesn't work, as truth-telling is greater than evangelizing.
Slack, Zoom and screen sharing
Professional integration is a perennial issue. Okay, Slack and Zoom are great, but they are less seamless than they are on macOS. I remain skeptical about screen sharing because it doesn't work as expected. They are not showstoppers, but they are areas of friction that accrue on busywork mornings.
As a convert from macOS, you'll be facing a retraining of muscle memory for a week or two. The keyboard shortcuts are similar from macOS, application and some workflows don't translate.
Hardware support and drivers
Hardware support is better than anticipated. It supports my 7 year old machine, but I wouldn't bet that it would work without a hitch on that generic laptop in the office storage room. Desktop Linux compatibility is still skeptical, only with higher chances than previously.
The community and ecosystem questions loom large. Distribution is young, the community is small, and survival is far from guaranteed. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, but one should be cognizant.
Who should use Omarchy Linux
Omarchy is not a cure-all, and to say otherwise would be dishonest.
It's appealing to programmers who reside within terminals and browser apps. Omarchy reduces more than it creates friction if your day-to-day development workflow is within code editors, browsers, and command-line programs.
Best suited for teams already familiar with Linux server environments (hint-our Ngineers already do!). The mental model applies easily, and compatibility with tools is usually strong.
It appeals to anyone who is dissatisfied with the lock down of macOS but doesn't want to be a part-time system admin on their desktop.
It's not ideal for design-intensive workflows or for companies with strict IT policies that dictate supported operating systems.
Should developers switch to Omarchy
That's what I say to individuals inquiring if they should use Omarchy: it boils down to risk tolerance and workflow necessity.
It is costly if you need a few days of productivity lost to get used to new patterns if you are not running software specific to macOS. Worst scenario is having to spend a weekend playing around and having to revert to doing what you were doing previously.
Omarchy truly excels at making classic Linux desktop use more accessible. It's not perfect, but it's the friendliest Linux desktop experience that I have seen in years.
Conclusion and recommendation
Will I stick with it? For now, yes. The gains in efficiency outweigh occasional hiccups, and the development experience is quite pleasant.
Omarchy isn’t perfect. But after a week on it, I haven’t missed my Mac once. If you live inside terminals and code editors, you might just find the same thing, progress, not perfection.
Jaideep Khandelwal
14 years on Linux. 4 on macOS. I've switched so often that every new 'revolutionary' Linux distribution makes me roll my eyes. You've probably felt that too, the hype, the disappointment. So when Omarchy showed up on my radar, backed by BaseCamp and promising an "Omakase" style Linux desktop, my initial response was excitement with mixed emotions.
Background: Linux, macOS and why Omarchy
Back in 2007, I was knee-deep in Linux. Different flavors, endless late-night dotfile hacks. If you’ve ever spent hours just trying to make your terminal look right, you know the thrill. From 2014 to 2018, I made the switch to macOS, not because I fell out of love with Linux, but out of curiosity. The aesthetics were undeniably polished, and they worked out well until I had my reasons.
For someone who spends time working with servers and virtual machines in the cloud, using Linux as the primary OS, makes sense. It eliminated that mental context switching between development environments. When I moved back to Linux in 2018 with an XPS machine, the lightness of XFCE felt like coming home (I used it for next 4 years). I even tried Pop_OS for a while. Something is compelling about a company (System76) actually maintaining its own Linux flavor when you use the dGPU by default, and its power management works.
But then life happened. Last year, I reluctantly switched back to macOS, and it wasn't about preference; it was about practicality. My work involves constant meetings, presentations, and the dreaded "can you present to the room?" moments. Ever tried connecting a Linux laptop to a random projector? The audio dies. Scaling breaks. Suddenly you’re the one holding up the whole meeting. I’ve been that person. More times than I’d like to admit.
Why does Linux continue to struggle on desktops?
The Linux desktop has been "almost ready" for two decades. I've seen multiple OS chase the macOS-like aesthetic, and witnessed countless distributions claim they've finally solved desktop Linux's fundamental problems, which should work just out of the box.
Some of them do as well, but the majority of the time they don't. And Omarchy doesn't yet. But if you are a Professional Software engineer who's okay with rough edges and happy to trade them for customization. You will like Omarchy.
It is an opinionated OS from David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH), creator of Ruby on Rails. Choice overload is a thing, and most users want something that gets the job done without needing to tweak everything to upkeep. Omarchy does that.
I am always on the lookout for light-weight Linux environments. This one has my interest from initial days, but I also had to be cautious about its impact on my day-to-day workflow.
Anyway, I decided to give it a try because why not? I have read about Omarchy for two months, and my frank assessment to date is: promising, flawed, and not for everyone.
What works (and works well in Omarchy)
Initially, Omarchy was not a Linux distribution but a bunch of configuration scripts on top of Arch Linux. The project now provides an ISO from its 2.0 release that's almost too simple to get started.
Unlike Omakub, which requires installing and configuring a fresh Ubuntu installation with a one-liner bash, Omarchy is an opinionated Linux distribution on Arch Linux with Hyprland configuration scripts. One gets the update via a Rails-inspired migration system rather than traditional package management. You can go back to previous snapshots, which is cool IMO.
I like DHH's taste because of his simplicity, and Omarchy does reflect that. Omarchy takes a different angle. Think of it as an ‘Omakase’ meal, the chef decides, you enjoy. Less choice overload, more curated taste. And if you’re tired of endlessly tweaking, that’s a relief.
Hyprland tiling and workflow
Everything comes pre-set up. The Hyprland-driven configuration is really slick, and the visual decisions feel deliberate rather than fortuitous.
People have customized configurations from barebones through the use of Hyprland + Sway to be able to have flexibility, specifically for distros like Arch. The window tiling is great at improving workflow. The ricing in Linux is a thing. It is used to imply a user is customizing their system interface, desktop icons, or panels. The focus is on aesthetics, functionality, and modularity. Omarchy hits the sweet spot for all three.
I've always gravitated toward tiling window managers for this reason. On macOS, I was using Yabai with custom configurations, trying to recreate that vim-like workflow. That is, not that tiling per se is for everyone (it isn't for the majority), but Hyprland's tiling removes the typical hurdles.
Key-bindings and keyboard-first setup
The key-bindings menu is my favorite. No messing with config files or memorizing key-bindings. It just operates predictably. It also gives you the scope to customize the Hyprland setup with ease.
As an engineer, I like the Keyboard-First philosophy. Here's something I learned early in my career: keyboard shortcuts over mouse usage aren’t just about looking cool, they’re about compound productivity gains. Yes, there's an initial cognitive load learning the bindings, but that effort pays dividends throughout your career. It's like compound interest for your efficiency. I invest heavily in learning key-bindings and like to operate my computer with the keyboard as much as possible.
Developer tooling with Docker and languages
The development experience is rock-solid. Abstracting the installation of the tool chain works without much hassle with Docker and language stack installations. Packaging is less chaotic than native installation with Arch, though possibly that's recency bias.
Design, theming and TUI installers
The average persona of a Omarchy user is of a software professional with experience using personal computers. The themes are beautiful. They're carefully considered design choices. The aesthetic choices matter too. We spend 8-12 hours a day looking at these screens. A well-designed environment isn't vanity; it's reducing cognitive friction and making your workspace genuinely pleasant to inhabit.
The TUI (Terminal User Interface) installations are handy; they're practical workflow improvements.
The handbook alone is worth the price of admission. Instead of scattered wiki pages and forum posts, you get comprehensive documentation covering everything from key-bindings to bash customization. As someone who's spent way too many hours hunting down that one specific configuration snippet, this level of polish is refreshing!
Security defaults and disk encryption
In terms of security, the installation does disk encryption by default. This is a good practice as security does not come naturally to many developers. Omarchy maintains its own packages and a mirror. It relies on Arch's own core repository and package repository.
Omarchy limitations and known issues
Arch purists will roll their eyes, it feels heavy. But here’s the thing: I stripped out LibreOffice and Signal in minutes. If you’ve ever trimmed down an install, you know the joy of making the distribution yours again.
Single-user setup and multi-OS caveats
Currently, the machine supports single-user setups with full disk encryption. If you're running shared development machines or need multi-user support, this isn't the solution.
Multi-monitor and projector support
Those presentation and projector issues I mentioned? They're still there. Linux desktop compatibility with multiple monitors can be a challenge, making it difficult for users. I prefer using monitors at home and in my office setup, even with the laptop lid closed. Detecting the laptop screen by itself is a problem.
Folks who run multiple OS on a machine will have a hard time doing parallel installations. I have used single-machine multi-OS systems for years, so it's not a relatable problem to me.
Updates, migration system and longevity
One concern will be maintenance and upgrade paths. Although the flavor is nascent, it has gained significant attention with the recent updates. The backing of DHH gives credibility and resources, but what if priorities change? The migration system is clever, but it's not the battle-tested versioning you get with major distributions. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, something one should be cognizant about.
How will it go forward? Only time will tell.
Reality check: apps, screen share and hardware
But tell us what doesn't work, as truth-telling is greater than evangelizing.
Slack, Zoom and screen sharing
Professional integration is a perennial issue. Okay, Slack and Zoom are great, but they are less seamless than they are on macOS. I remain skeptical about screen sharing because it doesn't work as expected. They are not showstoppers, but they are areas of friction that accrue on busywork mornings.
As a convert from macOS, you'll be facing a retraining of muscle memory for a week or two. The keyboard shortcuts are similar from macOS, application and some workflows don't translate.
Hardware support and drivers
Hardware support is better than anticipated. It supports my 7 year old machine, but I wouldn't bet that it would work without a hitch on that generic laptop in the office storage room. Desktop Linux compatibility is still skeptical, only with higher chances than previously.
The community and ecosystem questions loom large. Distribution is young, the community is small, and survival is far from guaranteed. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, but one should be cognizant.
Who should use Omarchy Linux
Omarchy is not a cure-all, and to say otherwise would be dishonest.
It's appealing to programmers who reside within terminals and browser apps. Omarchy reduces more than it creates friction if your day-to-day development workflow is within code editors, browsers, and command-line programs.
Best suited for teams already familiar with Linux server environments (hint-our Ngineers already do!). The mental model applies easily, and compatibility with tools is usually strong.
It appeals to anyone who is dissatisfied with the lock down of macOS but doesn't want to be a part-time system admin on their desktop.
It's not ideal for design-intensive workflows or for companies with strict IT policies that dictate supported operating systems.
Should developers switch to Omarchy
That's what I say to individuals inquiring if they should use Omarchy: it boils down to risk tolerance and workflow necessity.
It is costly if you need a few days of productivity lost to get used to new patterns if you are not running software specific to macOS. Worst scenario is having to spend a weekend playing around and having to revert to doing what you were doing previously.
Omarchy truly excels at making classic Linux desktop use more accessible. It's not perfect, but it's the friendliest Linux desktop experience that I have seen in years.
Conclusion and recommendation
Will I stick with it? For now, yes. The gains in efficiency outweigh occasional hiccups, and the development experience is quite pleasant.
Omarchy isn’t perfect. But after a week on it, I haven’t missed my Mac once. If you live inside terminals and code editors, you might just find the same thing, progress, not perfection.
Jaideep Khandelwal
14 years on Linux. 4 on macOS. I've switched so often that every new 'revolutionary' Linux distribution makes me roll my eyes. You've probably felt that too, the hype, the disappointment. So when Omarchy showed up on my radar, backed by BaseCamp and promising an "Omakase" style Linux desktop, my initial response was excitement with mixed emotions.
Background: Linux, macOS and why Omarchy
Back in 2007, I was knee-deep in Linux. Different flavors, endless late-night dotfile hacks. If you’ve ever spent hours just trying to make your terminal look right, you know the thrill. From 2014 to 2018, I made the switch to macOS, not because I fell out of love with Linux, but out of curiosity. The aesthetics were undeniably polished, and they worked out well until I had my reasons.
For someone who spends time working with servers and virtual machines in the cloud, using Linux as the primary OS, makes sense. It eliminated that mental context switching between development environments. When I moved back to Linux in 2018 with an XPS machine, the lightness of XFCE felt like coming home (I used it for next 4 years). I even tried Pop_OS for a while. Something is compelling about a company (System76) actually maintaining its own Linux flavor when you use the dGPU by default, and its power management works.
But then life happened. Last year, I reluctantly switched back to macOS, and it wasn't about preference; it was about practicality. My work involves constant meetings, presentations, and the dreaded "can you present to the room?" moments. Ever tried connecting a Linux laptop to a random projector? The audio dies. Scaling breaks. Suddenly you’re the one holding up the whole meeting. I’ve been that person. More times than I’d like to admit.
Why does Linux continue to struggle on desktops?
The Linux desktop has been "almost ready" for two decades. I've seen multiple OS chase the macOS-like aesthetic, and witnessed countless distributions claim they've finally solved desktop Linux's fundamental problems, which should work just out of the box.
Some of them do as well, but the majority of the time they don't. And Omarchy doesn't yet. But if you are a Professional Software engineer who's okay with rough edges and happy to trade them for customization. You will like Omarchy.
It is an opinionated OS from David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH), creator of Ruby on Rails. Choice overload is a thing, and most users want something that gets the job done without needing to tweak everything to upkeep. Omarchy does that.
I am always on the lookout for light-weight Linux environments. This one has my interest from initial days, but I also had to be cautious about its impact on my day-to-day workflow.
Anyway, I decided to give it a try because why not? I have read about Omarchy for two months, and my frank assessment to date is: promising, flawed, and not for everyone.
What works (and works well in Omarchy)
Initially, Omarchy was not a Linux distribution but a bunch of configuration scripts on top of Arch Linux. The project now provides an ISO from its 2.0 release that's almost too simple to get started.
Unlike Omakub, which requires installing and configuring a fresh Ubuntu installation with a one-liner bash, Omarchy is an opinionated Linux distribution on Arch Linux with Hyprland configuration scripts. One gets the update via a Rails-inspired migration system rather than traditional package management. You can go back to previous snapshots, which is cool IMO.
I like DHH's taste because of his simplicity, and Omarchy does reflect that. Omarchy takes a different angle. Think of it as an ‘Omakase’ meal, the chef decides, you enjoy. Less choice overload, more curated taste. And if you’re tired of endlessly tweaking, that’s a relief.
Hyprland tiling and workflow
Everything comes pre-set up. The Hyprland-driven configuration is really slick, and the visual decisions feel deliberate rather than fortuitous.
People have customized configurations from barebones through the use of Hyprland + Sway to be able to have flexibility, specifically for distros like Arch. The window tiling is great at improving workflow. The ricing in Linux is a thing. It is used to imply a user is customizing their system interface, desktop icons, or panels. The focus is on aesthetics, functionality, and modularity. Omarchy hits the sweet spot for all three.
I've always gravitated toward tiling window managers for this reason. On macOS, I was using Yabai with custom configurations, trying to recreate that vim-like workflow. That is, not that tiling per se is for everyone (it isn't for the majority), but Hyprland's tiling removes the typical hurdles.
Key-bindings and keyboard-first setup
The key-bindings menu is my favorite. No messing with config files or memorizing key-bindings. It just operates predictably. It also gives you the scope to customize the Hyprland setup with ease.
As an engineer, I like the Keyboard-First philosophy. Here's something I learned early in my career: keyboard shortcuts over mouse usage aren’t just about looking cool, they’re about compound productivity gains. Yes, there's an initial cognitive load learning the bindings, but that effort pays dividends throughout your career. It's like compound interest for your efficiency. I invest heavily in learning key-bindings and like to operate my computer with the keyboard as much as possible.
Developer tooling with Docker and languages
The development experience is rock-solid. Abstracting the installation of the tool chain works without much hassle with Docker and language stack installations. Packaging is less chaotic than native installation with Arch, though possibly that's recency bias.
Design, theming and TUI installers
The average persona of a Omarchy user is of a software professional with experience using personal computers. The themes are beautiful. They're carefully considered design choices. The aesthetic choices matter too. We spend 8-12 hours a day looking at these screens. A well-designed environment isn't vanity; it's reducing cognitive friction and making your workspace genuinely pleasant to inhabit.
The TUI (Terminal User Interface) installations are handy; they're practical workflow improvements.
The handbook alone is worth the price of admission. Instead of scattered wiki pages and forum posts, you get comprehensive documentation covering everything from key-bindings to bash customization. As someone who's spent way too many hours hunting down that one specific configuration snippet, this level of polish is refreshing!
Security defaults and disk encryption
In terms of security, the installation does disk encryption by default. This is a good practice as security does not come naturally to many developers. Omarchy maintains its own packages and a mirror. It relies on Arch's own core repository and package repository.
Omarchy limitations and known issues
Arch purists will roll their eyes, it feels heavy. But here’s the thing: I stripped out LibreOffice and Signal in minutes. If you’ve ever trimmed down an install, you know the joy of making the distribution yours again.
Single-user setup and multi-OS caveats
Currently, the machine supports single-user setups with full disk encryption. If you're running shared development machines or need multi-user support, this isn't the solution.
Multi-monitor and projector support
Those presentation and projector issues I mentioned? They're still there. Linux desktop compatibility with multiple monitors can be a challenge, making it difficult for users. I prefer using monitors at home and in my office setup, even with the laptop lid closed. Detecting the laptop screen by itself is a problem.
Folks who run multiple OS on a machine will have a hard time doing parallel installations. I have used single-machine multi-OS systems for years, so it's not a relatable problem to me.
Updates, migration system and longevity
One concern will be maintenance and upgrade paths. Although the flavor is nascent, it has gained significant attention with the recent updates. The backing of DHH gives credibility and resources, but what if priorities change? The migration system is clever, but it's not the battle-tested versioning you get with major distributions. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, something one should be cognizant about.
How will it go forward? Only time will tell.
Reality check: apps, screen share and hardware
But tell us what doesn't work, as truth-telling is greater than evangelizing.
Slack, Zoom and screen sharing
Professional integration is a perennial issue. Okay, Slack and Zoom are great, but they are less seamless than they are on macOS. I remain skeptical about screen sharing because it doesn't work as expected. They are not showstoppers, but they are areas of friction that accrue on busywork mornings.
As a convert from macOS, you'll be facing a retraining of muscle memory for a week or two. The keyboard shortcuts are similar from macOS, application and some workflows don't translate.
Hardware support and drivers
Hardware support is better than anticipated. It supports my 7 year old machine, but I wouldn't bet that it would work without a hitch on that generic laptop in the office storage room. Desktop Linux compatibility is still skeptical, only with higher chances than previously.
The community and ecosystem questions loom large. Distribution is young, the community is small, and survival is far from guaranteed. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, but one should be cognizant.
Who should use Omarchy Linux
Omarchy is not a cure-all, and to say otherwise would be dishonest.
It's appealing to programmers who reside within terminals and browser apps. Omarchy reduces more than it creates friction if your day-to-day development workflow is within code editors, browsers, and command-line programs.
Best suited for teams already familiar with Linux server environments (hint-our Ngineers already do!). The mental model applies easily, and compatibility with tools is usually strong.
It appeals to anyone who is dissatisfied with the lock down of macOS but doesn't want to be a part-time system admin on their desktop.
It's not ideal for design-intensive workflows or for companies with strict IT policies that dictate supported operating systems.
Should developers switch to Omarchy
That's what I say to individuals inquiring if they should use Omarchy: it boils down to risk tolerance and workflow necessity.
It is costly if you need a few days of productivity lost to get used to new patterns if you are not running software specific to macOS. Worst scenario is having to spend a weekend playing around and having to revert to doing what you were doing previously.
Omarchy truly excels at making classic Linux desktop use more accessible. It's not perfect, but it's the friendliest Linux desktop experience that I have seen in years.
Conclusion and recommendation
Will I stick with it? For now, yes. The gains in efficiency outweigh occasional hiccups, and the development experience is quite pleasant.
Omarchy isn’t perfect. But after a week on it, I haven’t missed my Mac once. If you live inside terminals and code editors, you might just find the same thing, progress, not perfection.
Jaideep Khandelwal
14 years on Linux. 4 on macOS. I've switched so often that every new 'revolutionary' Linux distribution makes me roll my eyes. You've probably felt that too, the hype, the disappointment. So when Omarchy showed up on my radar, backed by BaseCamp and promising an "Omakase" style Linux desktop, my initial response was excitement with mixed emotions.
Background: Linux, macOS and why Omarchy
Back in 2007, I was knee-deep in Linux. Different flavors, endless late-night dotfile hacks. If you’ve ever spent hours just trying to make your terminal look right, you know the thrill. From 2014 to 2018, I made the switch to macOS, not because I fell out of love with Linux, but out of curiosity. The aesthetics were undeniably polished, and they worked out well until I had my reasons.
For someone who spends time working with servers and virtual machines in the cloud, using Linux as the primary OS, makes sense. It eliminated that mental context switching between development environments. When I moved back to Linux in 2018 with an XPS machine, the lightness of XFCE felt like coming home (I used it for next 4 years). I even tried Pop_OS for a while. Something is compelling about a company (System76) actually maintaining its own Linux flavor when you use the dGPU by default, and its power management works.
But then life happened. Last year, I reluctantly switched back to macOS, and it wasn't about preference; it was about practicality. My work involves constant meetings, presentations, and the dreaded "can you present to the room?" moments. Ever tried connecting a Linux laptop to a random projector? The audio dies. Scaling breaks. Suddenly you’re the one holding up the whole meeting. I’ve been that person. More times than I’d like to admit.
Why does Linux continue to struggle on desktops?
The Linux desktop has been "almost ready" for two decades. I've seen multiple OS chase the macOS-like aesthetic, and witnessed countless distributions claim they've finally solved desktop Linux's fundamental problems, which should work just out of the box.
Some of them do as well, but the majority of the time they don't. And Omarchy doesn't yet. But if you are a Professional Software engineer who's okay with rough edges and happy to trade them for customization. You will like Omarchy.
It is an opinionated OS from David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH), creator of Ruby on Rails. Choice overload is a thing, and most users want something that gets the job done without needing to tweak everything to upkeep. Omarchy does that.
I am always on the lookout for light-weight Linux environments. This one has my interest from initial days, but I also had to be cautious about its impact on my day-to-day workflow.
Anyway, I decided to give it a try because why not? I have read about Omarchy for two months, and my frank assessment to date is: promising, flawed, and not for everyone.
What works (and works well in Omarchy)
Initially, Omarchy was not a Linux distribution but a bunch of configuration scripts on top of Arch Linux. The project now provides an ISO from its 2.0 release that's almost too simple to get started.
Unlike Omakub, which requires installing and configuring a fresh Ubuntu installation with a one-liner bash, Omarchy is an opinionated Linux distribution on Arch Linux with Hyprland configuration scripts. One gets the update via a Rails-inspired migration system rather than traditional package management. You can go back to previous snapshots, which is cool IMO.
I like DHH's taste because of his simplicity, and Omarchy does reflect that. Omarchy takes a different angle. Think of it as an ‘Omakase’ meal, the chef decides, you enjoy. Less choice overload, more curated taste. And if you’re tired of endlessly tweaking, that’s a relief.
Hyprland tiling and workflow
Everything comes pre-set up. The Hyprland-driven configuration is really slick, and the visual decisions feel deliberate rather than fortuitous.
People have customized configurations from barebones through the use of Hyprland + Sway to be able to have flexibility, specifically for distros like Arch. The window tiling is great at improving workflow. The ricing in Linux is a thing. It is used to imply a user is customizing their system interface, desktop icons, or panels. The focus is on aesthetics, functionality, and modularity. Omarchy hits the sweet spot for all three.
I've always gravitated toward tiling window managers for this reason. On macOS, I was using Yabai with custom configurations, trying to recreate that vim-like workflow. That is, not that tiling per se is for everyone (it isn't for the majority), but Hyprland's tiling removes the typical hurdles.
Key-bindings and keyboard-first setup
The key-bindings menu is my favorite. No messing with config files or memorizing key-bindings. It just operates predictably. It also gives you the scope to customize the Hyprland setup with ease.
As an engineer, I like the Keyboard-First philosophy. Here's something I learned early in my career: keyboard shortcuts over mouse usage aren’t just about looking cool, they’re about compound productivity gains. Yes, there's an initial cognitive load learning the bindings, but that effort pays dividends throughout your career. It's like compound interest for your efficiency. I invest heavily in learning key-bindings and like to operate my computer with the keyboard as much as possible.
Developer tooling with Docker and languages
The development experience is rock-solid. Abstracting the installation of the tool chain works without much hassle with Docker and language stack installations. Packaging is less chaotic than native installation with Arch, though possibly that's recency bias.
Design, theming and TUI installers
The average persona of a Omarchy user is of a software professional with experience using personal computers. The themes are beautiful. They're carefully considered design choices. The aesthetic choices matter too. We spend 8-12 hours a day looking at these screens. A well-designed environment isn't vanity; it's reducing cognitive friction and making your workspace genuinely pleasant to inhabit.
The TUI (Terminal User Interface) installations are handy; they're practical workflow improvements.
The handbook alone is worth the price of admission. Instead of scattered wiki pages and forum posts, you get comprehensive documentation covering everything from key-bindings to bash customization. As someone who's spent way too many hours hunting down that one specific configuration snippet, this level of polish is refreshing!
Security defaults and disk encryption
In terms of security, the installation does disk encryption by default. This is a good practice as security does not come naturally to many developers. Omarchy maintains its own packages and a mirror. It relies on Arch's own core repository and package repository.
Omarchy limitations and known issues
Arch purists will roll their eyes, it feels heavy. But here’s the thing: I stripped out LibreOffice and Signal in minutes. If you’ve ever trimmed down an install, you know the joy of making the distribution yours again.
Single-user setup and multi-OS caveats
Currently, the machine supports single-user setups with full disk encryption. If you're running shared development machines or need multi-user support, this isn't the solution.
Multi-monitor and projector support
Those presentation and projector issues I mentioned? They're still there. Linux desktop compatibility with multiple monitors can be a challenge, making it difficult for users. I prefer using monitors at home and in my office setup, even with the laptop lid closed. Detecting the laptop screen by itself is a problem.
Folks who run multiple OS on a machine will have a hard time doing parallel installations. I have used single-machine multi-OS systems for years, so it's not a relatable problem to me.
Updates, migration system and longevity
One concern will be maintenance and upgrade paths. Although the flavor is nascent, it has gained significant attention with the recent updates. The backing of DHH gives credibility and resources, but what if priorities change? The migration system is clever, but it's not the battle-tested versioning you get with major distributions. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, something one should be cognizant about.
How will it go forward? Only time will tell.
Reality check: apps, screen share and hardware
But tell us what doesn't work, as truth-telling is greater than evangelizing.
Slack, Zoom and screen sharing
Professional integration is a perennial issue. Okay, Slack and Zoom are great, but they are less seamless than they are on macOS. I remain skeptical about screen sharing because it doesn't work as expected. They are not showstoppers, but they are areas of friction that accrue on busywork mornings.
As a convert from macOS, you'll be facing a retraining of muscle memory for a week or two. The keyboard shortcuts are similar from macOS, application and some workflows don't translate.
Hardware support and drivers
Hardware support is better than anticipated. It supports my 7 year old machine, but I wouldn't bet that it would work without a hitch on that generic laptop in the office storage room. Desktop Linux compatibility is still skeptical, only with higher chances than previously.
The community and ecosystem questions loom large. Distribution is young, the community is small, and survival is far from guaranteed. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, but one should be cognizant.
Who should use Omarchy Linux
Omarchy is not a cure-all, and to say otherwise would be dishonest.
It's appealing to programmers who reside within terminals and browser apps. Omarchy reduces more than it creates friction if your day-to-day development workflow is within code editors, browsers, and command-line programs.
Best suited for teams already familiar with Linux server environments (hint-our Ngineers already do!). The mental model applies easily, and compatibility with tools is usually strong.
It appeals to anyone who is dissatisfied with the lock down of macOS but doesn't want to be a part-time system admin on their desktop.
It's not ideal for design-intensive workflows or for companies with strict IT policies that dictate supported operating systems.
Should developers switch to Omarchy
That's what I say to individuals inquiring if they should use Omarchy: it boils down to risk tolerance and workflow necessity.
It is costly if you need a few days of productivity lost to get used to new patterns if you are not running software specific to macOS. Worst scenario is having to spend a weekend playing around and having to revert to doing what you were doing previously.
Omarchy truly excels at making classic Linux desktop use more accessible. It's not perfect, but it's the friendliest Linux desktop experience that I have seen in years.
Conclusion and recommendation
Will I stick with it? For now, yes. The gains in efficiency outweigh occasional hiccups, and the development experience is quite pleasant.
Omarchy isn’t perfect. But after a week on it, I haven’t missed my Mac once. If you live inside terminals and code editors, you might just find the same thing, progress, not perfection.
Jaideep Khandelwal
14 years on Linux. 4 on macOS. I've switched so often that every new 'revolutionary' Linux distribution makes me roll my eyes. You've probably felt that too, the hype, the disappointment. So when Omarchy showed up on my radar, backed by BaseCamp and promising an "Omakase" style Linux desktop, my initial response was excitement with mixed emotions.
Background: Linux, macOS and why Omarchy
Back in 2007, I was knee-deep in Linux. Different flavors, endless late-night dotfile hacks. If you’ve ever spent hours just trying to make your terminal look right, you know the thrill. From 2014 to 2018, I made the switch to macOS, not because I fell out of love with Linux, but out of curiosity. The aesthetics were undeniably polished, and they worked out well until I had my reasons.
For someone who spends time working with servers and virtual machines in the cloud, using Linux as the primary OS, makes sense. It eliminated that mental context switching between development environments. When I moved back to Linux in 2018 with an XPS machine, the lightness of XFCE felt like coming home (I used it for next 4 years). I even tried Pop_OS for a while. Something is compelling about a company (System76) actually maintaining its own Linux flavor when you use the dGPU by default, and its power management works.
But then life happened. Last year, I reluctantly switched back to macOS, and it wasn't about preference; it was about practicality. My work involves constant meetings, presentations, and the dreaded "can you present to the room?" moments. Ever tried connecting a Linux laptop to a random projector? The audio dies. Scaling breaks. Suddenly you’re the one holding up the whole meeting. I’ve been that person. More times than I’d like to admit.
Why does Linux continue to struggle on desktops?
The Linux desktop has been "almost ready" for two decades. I've seen multiple OS chase the macOS-like aesthetic, and witnessed countless distributions claim they've finally solved desktop Linux's fundamental problems, which should work just out of the box.
Some of them do as well, but the majority of the time they don't. And Omarchy doesn't yet. But if you are a Professional Software engineer who's okay with rough edges and happy to trade them for customization. You will like Omarchy.
It is an opinionated OS from David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH), creator of Ruby on Rails. Choice overload is a thing, and most users want something that gets the job done without needing to tweak everything to upkeep. Omarchy does that.
I am always on the lookout for light-weight Linux environments. This one has my interest from initial days, but I also had to be cautious about its impact on my day-to-day workflow.
Anyway, I decided to give it a try because why not? I have read about Omarchy for two months, and my frank assessment to date is: promising, flawed, and not for everyone.
What works (and works well in Omarchy)
Initially, Omarchy was not a Linux distribution but a bunch of configuration scripts on top of Arch Linux. The project now provides an ISO from its 2.0 release that's almost too simple to get started.
Unlike Omakub, which requires installing and configuring a fresh Ubuntu installation with a one-liner bash, Omarchy is an opinionated Linux distribution on Arch Linux with Hyprland configuration scripts. One gets the update via a Rails-inspired migration system rather than traditional package management. You can go back to previous snapshots, which is cool IMO.
I like DHH's taste because of his simplicity, and Omarchy does reflect that. Omarchy takes a different angle. Think of it as an ‘Omakase’ meal, the chef decides, you enjoy. Less choice overload, more curated taste. And if you’re tired of endlessly tweaking, that’s a relief.
Hyprland tiling and workflow
Everything comes pre-set up. The Hyprland-driven configuration is really slick, and the visual decisions feel deliberate rather than fortuitous.
People have customized configurations from barebones through the use of Hyprland + Sway to be able to have flexibility, specifically for distros like Arch. The window tiling is great at improving workflow. The ricing in Linux is a thing. It is used to imply a user is customizing their system interface, desktop icons, or panels. The focus is on aesthetics, functionality, and modularity. Omarchy hits the sweet spot for all three.
I've always gravitated toward tiling window managers for this reason. On macOS, I was using Yabai with custom configurations, trying to recreate that vim-like workflow. That is, not that tiling per se is for everyone (it isn't for the majority), but Hyprland's tiling removes the typical hurdles.
Key-bindings and keyboard-first setup
The key-bindings menu is my favorite. No messing with config files or memorizing key-bindings. It just operates predictably. It also gives you the scope to customize the Hyprland setup with ease.
As an engineer, I like the Keyboard-First philosophy. Here's something I learned early in my career: keyboard shortcuts over mouse usage aren’t just about looking cool, they’re about compound productivity gains. Yes, there's an initial cognitive load learning the bindings, but that effort pays dividends throughout your career. It's like compound interest for your efficiency. I invest heavily in learning key-bindings and like to operate my computer with the keyboard as much as possible.
Developer tooling with Docker and languages
The development experience is rock-solid. Abstracting the installation of the tool chain works without much hassle with Docker and language stack installations. Packaging is less chaotic than native installation with Arch, though possibly that's recency bias.
Design, theming and TUI installers
The average persona of a Omarchy user is of a software professional with experience using personal computers. The themes are beautiful. They're carefully considered design choices. The aesthetic choices matter too. We spend 8-12 hours a day looking at these screens. A well-designed environment isn't vanity; it's reducing cognitive friction and making your workspace genuinely pleasant to inhabit.
The TUI (Terminal User Interface) installations are handy; they're practical workflow improvements.
The handbook alone is worth the price of admission. Instead of scattered wiki pages and forum posts, you get comprehensive documentation covering everything from key-bindings to bash customization. As someone who's spent way too many hours hunting down that one specific configuration snippet, this level of polish is refreshing!
Security defaults and disk encryption
In terms of security, the installation does disk encryption by default. This is a good practice as security does not come naturally to many developers. Omarchy maintains its own packages and a mirror. It relies on Arch's own core repository and package repository.
Omarchy limitations and known issues
Arch purists will roll their eyes, it feels heavy. But here’s the thing: I stripped out LibreOffice and Signal in minutes. If you’ve ever trimmed down an install, you know the joy of making the distribution yours again.
Single-user setup and multi-OS caveats
Currently, the machine supports single-user setups with full disk encryption. If you're running shared development machines or need multi-user support, this isn't the solution.
Multi-monitor and projector support
Those presentation and projector issues I mentioned? They're still there. Linux desktop compatibility with multiple monitors can be a challenge, making it difficult for users. I prefer using monitors at home and in my office setup, even with the laptop lid closed. Detecting the laptop screen by itself is a problem.
Folks who run multiple OS on a machine will have a hard time doing parallel installations. I have used single-machine multi-OS systems for years, so it's not a relatable problem to me.
Updates, migration system and longevity
One concern will be maintenance and upgrade paths. Although the flavor is nascent, it has gained significant attention with the recent updates. The backing of DHH gives credibility and resources, but what if priorities change? The migration system is clever, but it's not the battle-tested versioning you get with major distributions. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, something one should be cognizant about.
How will it go forward? Only time will tell.
Reality check: apps, screen share and hardware
But tell us what doesn't work, as truth-telling is greater than evangelizing.
Slack, Zoom and screen sharing
Professional integration is a perennial issue. Okay, Slack and Zoom are great, but they are less seamless than they are on macOS. I remain skeptical about screen sharing because it doesn't work as expected. They are not showstoppers, but they are areas of friction that accrue on busywork mornings.
As a convert from macOS, you'll be facing a retraining of muscle memory for a week or two. The keyboard shortcuts are similar from macOS, application and some workflows don't translate.
Hardware support and drivers
Hardware support is better than anticipated. It supports my 7 year old machine, but I wouldn't bet that it would work without a hitch on that generic laptop in the office storage room. Desktop Linux compatibility is still skeptical, only with higher chances than previously.
The community and ecosystem questions loom large. Distribution is young, the community is small, and survival is far from guaranteed. This isn't necessarily an Omarchy problem; it's a Linux desktop reality, but one should be cognizant.
Who should use Omarchy Linux
Omarchy is not a cure-all, and to say otherwise would be dishonest.
It's appealing to programmers who reside within terminals and browser apps. Omarchy reduces more than it creates friction if your day-to-day development workflow is within code editors, browsers, and command-line programs.
Best suited for teams already familiar with Linux server environments (hint-our Ngineers already do!). The mental model applies easily, and compatibility with tools is usually strong.
It appeals to anyone who is dissatisfied with the lock down of macOS but doesn't want to be a part-time system admin on their desktop.
It's not ideal for design-intensive workflows or for companies with strict IT policies that dictate supported operating systems.
Should developers switch to Omarchy
That's what I say to individuals inquiring if they should use Omarchy: it boils down to risk tolerance and workflow necessity.
It is costly if you need a few days of productivity lost to get used to new patterns if you are not running software specific to macOS. Worst scenario is having to spend a weekend playing around and having to revert to doing what you were doing previously.
Omarchy truly excels at making classic Linux desktop use more accessible. It's not perfect, but it's the friendliest Linux desktop experience that I have seen in years.
Conclusion and recommendation
Will I stick with it? For now, yes. The gains in efficiency outweigh occasional hiccups, and the development experience is quite pleasant.
Omarchy isn’t perfect. But after a week on it, I haven’t missed my Mac once. If you live inside terminals and code editors, you might just find the same thing, progress, not perfection.
Jaideep Khandelwal
