You meant to write geeks? Nerds generally don't like their software packaged like fast food.

I must've forgot that nerds use only Linux from Scratch.

Nerds use whatever distro they like, and then bend it to their will.

Geeks are the type of people to install Omarchy or LARBS or disable their Mac's SIP for i3wm eye candy. The biggest change a geek makes to their system is changing the wallpaper to Tony Stark.

So using a distribution, which bundles different components into a cohesive package is somehow different then an install script which bundles different components into another cohesive package? A distribution provides the base layer that you can customize to your liking. Omarchy is another base layer to customize to your liking.

So using a distribution is for nerds but using something like Omarchy is for lower class geeks? What was the difference again? Can you elaborate on that? It feels like rage baiting but that wouldn't be constructive so I assume that you're acting in good faith and that you explain this line of thinking in more detail.

So someone who uses someone's zsh config and adapts it to their liking is a geek as well because someone else (a nerd) did the heavy lifting already?

Who even says that everyone installing Omarchy doesn't bend it to their will afterwards? Is everyone using the same tools and web apps as DHH? Then why should something like Omarchy even provide writable configs to customize it?

I'm confused.

The main difference is that nerds don't have para social relationships with software or their creators.

None of this is leading anywhere.

You started it with a dumb comment. I am just circle jerking.

hope this helps:

When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.

Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

Interesting it looks like you didn't read the rules yourself.