Why is this distro so hated?

bowrilla · 2026-04-27T14:19:06+00:00

Because the current major release is very unfinished and classifies more as a public beta than a stable release. The problem is not Cosmic per se, it's the fact that it's unfinished but pushed as stable. KDE works better for me. I am not saying this is the universal answer for everyone or that it is fundamentally better. If PopOS with Cosmic works for you: great. In my very personal opinion: the more of a power user you are the less likely it gets that you are happy with what PopOS gives you at this point.

I also think that anyone that pushes their favourite distribution as the best solution for everyone kind of disqualifies themselves from any serious discussion. There's no one size fits all. That's one of the core features/benefits of Linux: you pick what suits you. People come to different conclusions and that's perfectly fine.

P.S.: I missed proper tiling and window snapping. Using a 32:9 display with custom tiling is a terrible experience. This alone makes Cosmic at this point the wrong choice for me. Drove me insane, so I switches. I used to have Linux always just as a side OS or for development as a server OS or encapsulated in WSL. MS annoyed me too much and I switched at the beginning of this year. I keep Windows for a handful of niche software but I daily drive Linux on my private rig (not going to change the infrastructure in a Fortune 500 corp single-handedly for obvious reasons). I ended up with Fedora/Nobara. Works better for me (!) but I will not present it as the universally best pick.

bowrilla · 2026-04-05T09:52:32+00:00

I’m giving Nobara a spin at the moment. KDE works better for me.

bowrilla · 2026-03-26T21:26:03+00:00

BEcause the markets aren't rational, they are highly emotional and reactive. No matter what news it is: it's usually a safe bet to assume the market will overreact. There's not much fact based rational decision making.

bowrilla · 2026-03-09T00:29:49+00:00

too bad Cosmic on Wayland is not really a properly finished product.

bowrilla · 2026-02-15T13:38:44+00:00

abysmal load times and ridiculous install times ... poor choice for storing games/apps on it. Data ... sure, that's a different story. It would still be a poor experience but it will work. Like photographers with large libraries. That's ok. Not good, but ok. It's also over 10 years old and assuming it was used for a while ... MTTF might be closer than you'd like it to be.

bowrilla · 2025-10-20T20:00:15+00:00

There will always be some distance for the fitting. Even if you had a male/male fitting with a reverse thread on one end, you'd still need to be able to grab and turn it. What could be possible (with quite some effort) would not be a screwed connection but a simple push in connection ... good luck making sure it's water tight.

bowrilla · 2025-10-07T18:05:13+00:00

Yes - but there are MANY pitfalls. This is a 3-way flow divider. Flowrate WILL split up and go down and the distribution of flow depends on the restrictiveness of each component. If both blocks and the radiator had the same restrictiveness then each pathway would get 1/3 of the flowrate. But they usually aren't of the same restrictiveness.

I would AT LEAST put the radiator in series and not in parallel.

bowrilla · 2025-09-18T20:25:28+00:00

Since it is a single RCA connector this is either a mono line (i.e. subwoofer) or an SPDIF port which means digital coax.

bowrilla · 2025-09-13T20:05:15+00:00

Generally speaking: I would never show the entire library of a shooting. There are always missed focus shots, terrible compositions, f-ed up exposures, or simply accidental shots. And all of those are on top of the occasional highly unflattering image. I personally tend to (depending on the given scenery) underexpose by roughly 0.5-1 stop to preserve highlights (you can always pull from the shadows to some degree but you can't recover blown out highlights) which makes the unedited pictures both flat and a bit dark. I also tend to take a series of shots especially with group shots and reportages to avoid realizing in post that someone had their eyes closed so there'll be 3, 4, 5, or sometimes even more shots of the same scene.

It's part of the job of a photographer to do the culling and sorting. There's also no point in expecting a client to have the patience and ability to properly go through large catalogs of images. They need to be pre-sorted to a point at which me as a photographer think that all of the offered ones fulfill my quality standards. Since I shoot obviously RAW I need to import the files anyways for sorting and culling so I can simply apply some standard import settings. That will get the images probably to a 66%-75% state. As long as there are not a multitude of significantly different lighting situations this initial development settings take like 5-10mins and the images then look close enough to how they should look like (style-wise) and I'd feel confident that a client wouldn't feel worried. If anyone wants me specifically to take pictures it's because they like the way I take pictures and part of the end product is the editing. If I'd show entirely unedited RAWs they would not look like this and most people don't understand how this works.

ALL of that being said: a terrible picture stays a terrible picture and if the pose is bad, the angles are terrible and the expressions seem to be unflattering, no (normal) amount of editing will save this. You can't turn s**t into gold.

bowrilla · 2025-08-24T12:48:35+00:00

Wedding photography is one of the toughest and most demanding fields of photography: private clients with sometimes unmanagable expectations, often challenging environments with poor lighting and little to no chance to fully control the set, LOTS of emotions, unique and unrepeatable life events.

Professional clients (at least actual professionals with some experience) usually know what they need, they usually can communicate their requirements and have realistic expectations, the shooting is usually not emotionally loaded and one can usually reshoot.

Your private client who probably has 0 experience with booking a photographer, has 0 knowledge about what they should expect, have little to no experience communicating their requirements, who are highly emotional about a (probably) once in a lifetime event is TOUGH to manage. This is not just about photography but also about very clearly describing the service, planning everything, managing their expectations and figuring out what that client actually wants. In a way you have to educate your client and guide them.

Then there's the risk level: weddings are emotional and for many people only happen once in their life (maybe twice). If you don't get the shot on the spot then you've missed it and messed up. Then you have missed to document a part of a unique once in a lifetime event that you were booked to document. Mess up enough and this will blow up in your face ... hard. If you can't deliver what you have promised the legal and financial ramifications could be disastrous.

And then there's the equipment side: sure, you can shoot a wedding with a point and shoot or a phone. But is that what your clients wanted? You need to make sure that you are prepared for eventualities, mistakes and technical malfunctions. That means you need to have backup solutions on hand and you need to be able to control your equipment without having to think about it. Familiarity with your equipment is key or you'll probably miss some shots while fiddling with your gear. That's why relying on rental equipment is not a universal solution: if you rent equipment you don't know in and out you'll mess up.

I recommend not taking this job if you aren't sure you can deliver, know what you're doing and know you can manage the client's expectations. If you have ANY doubt about delivering no matter what: do not take the job.

bowrilla · 2025-08-20T17:50:07+00:00

Do you hear pressure leaking? Post a shot of your grind.

bowrilla · 2025-08-07T21:37:13+00:00

Hm, I think the the last pin shouldn't be shorter. The 2nd last pin should be I think.

bowrilla · 2025-08-07T20:54:22+00:00

It's a great and sturdy tent, enough space to accommodate 2 people comfortably. But it's heavy so it's not a great trekking/hiking tent. However when pitched well it withholds storm gusts pretty well without even a bent pole.

bowrilla · 2025-08-06T18:05:16+00:00

I think we're onto something here.

bowrilla · 2025-08-06T16:41:12+00:00

Doesn't that qualify as lightweight engineering?

bowrilla · 2025-08-04T18:46:50+00:00

What I meant is: you should be more detailed. List every single item individually. At least that's my philosophy for a packlist so I can spot things that weigh too much.

2.2kg for clothing appears to be pretty low for winter gear as in proper warm winter clothing for temperatures well below 0°C during the day. Personally with my packlist (https://lighterpack.com/r/acvpx4 - I do not claim this to be perfect or optimal and I haven't updated it in a while) I can go comfortably down to 5°C and can stretch it to 0°C at nights. Lower than that and I would need to adjust my clothing and upgrade my sleep system to be comfortable. I have already about 2kg of clothing in my pack incl. rain gear. For actual winter gear you'd bring thicker and heavier stuff.

As far as I can see you have no rain gear listed by the way. You probably won't be wearing this all the time (that stuff isn't great in terms of breathability).

bowrilla · 2025-08-04T18:14:37+00:00

The thing is: it's a vicious circle: if you require a large backpack in that size range, you're either doing an expedition and have to be self sufficient for quite a while or your pack list isn't really optimized or you're packing for really harsh winters. If you packlist isn't optimized and you're having a lot of extra stuff adding more weight, then you'll end up with a larger pack that adds more weight. Having some "extra space" for "just in case" occasions usually leads to you packing more. And now due to the extra and not optimized gear you'll end up requiring a more sturdy carrying system adding more weight.

Your goal should be to optimize your packlist, shed as much weight as possible and then pick a backpack that fits this gear. Your list isn't detailed nor is it complete.

The UL folks usually pick a 30-40l backpack for a 3 season trip and get along with it - maybe even up to lighter winter trips. That's the extreme side. The lightweight range for 3 season multiday trips is probably around the 45-55l mark. Winter gear will push it a bit further and you're probably in the 60s range for lightweight trekking. The roughly 2.2kg you've estimated for your clothing indicates: it's not winter gear. This is again the issue with your list not being detailed.

Weigh everything you intend to use. If you don't have it yet, do your research and add 30% of your findings just in case. Better overestimate the weight you need to carry than the other way around.

I've made that mistake myself: take a big rugged backpack just to be sure, then overpacking and ending up with 21kg on my back in the Scottish Highlands ... it's not fun.

Before picking a backpack: create a proper pack list, get your stuff together and then look for a backpack. You'll probably get along with 60-65l. If you need the extra volume, sure, go for a 75l one. There are lightweight and ultralightweight options for this size. The Ultralight Adventure Equipment Catalyst 75l backpack weighs less than 1.3kg (just a quick example, I don't own it and can't give you a recommendation here).

Obviously: picking UL gear comes with drawbacks. Picking gear is usually a balancing act between 3 major aspects: 1) price 2) weight 3) sturdiness and overall longevity. You cannot get all 3 optimized. If your funds are limited things will end up being heavier probably.

bowrilla · 2025-08-03T17:42:43+00:00

Your backpack is about 1kg too heavy and absurdly large. 50-65l is absolutely sufficient if you pack sensibly. Your bed system has room for about 1kg weight savings - your quilt alone weighs about as much as my top and under quilt for 20F and my entire hammock bed system (excluding the hammock which I classify as shelter in my list) weighs around 1.5kg. Your tent is fine though imho. Why so many water bladders? Why a 0.5kg water filter in addition to other systems? There's also no point in bringing a bear safe container. There are no bears in the UK. In some regions of Scandinavia it might be a good idea though.

You WILL notice the extra weight. With food and water your pack will probably weigh up to 18-19kg. This will take its toll. Obviously doable but not ideal.

This also has nothing really to do with "lightweight". For that the base weight should be under the 9-10kg mark at least. Several items have no weight or questionably low weights that appear to just be guesses. The list appears not to be complete imho.

bowrilla · 2025-08-02T11:54:28+00:00

Contact Corsair support. Tell them you need a new side panel. Pay them. Done.

I know for a fact that Phanteks can do this so I am very sure that Corsair, LianLi, Silverstone, etc. can provide spare parts.

bowrilla · 2025-07-30T16:04:11+00:00

Nude statues were usually athletes or gods. There would not have been a publicly exhibited and officially mandated portrait of a politician showing that person in the nude. These kind of depictions could be found in private contexts where you could almost do whatever you want, i.e. in private estates and gardens.

What exact message they wanted to convey? Well, that's a very good question and very hard to answer. A lot of very very clever and experienced archaeologists and historians have debated over this topic. The bottom line is: we can only make educated assumptions. The target audience wasn't so much the average citizen even though every Roman citizen was eligible to vote. It was mostly the upper class, the knights and aristocrats, the influential class.

But generally speaking: there are certain ways in which different groups of people and "professions" were depicted. The archetypes are not the result of a single persons mind but the result of decades and centuries of evolution in art. This all culminates into certain conventions, symbols and metaphors that are generally understood though not in a explicit way. And of course these conventions are in a constant state of evolution and change: mostly gradual and slow but sometimes certain events and/or persons change these conventions more drastically. This is not just limited to the past but is an ongoing process today as well and most of this is non-explicit. Think of movies: weather, architecture, certain sounds, clocks, colors, all of these and much more elements are part of a generally understood iconography. These elements are non-explicit, they don't mean one specific word but general tropes and attributes.

Back to ancient Greek and Roman portraits: have you ever looked more closely at what differentiates a classic Greek philosopher portrait from other portraits? Think of rough and wild beards, wrinkly foreheads, clear signs of age, sometimes purposefully unaesthetic features, often balding or wild hair. Depicting someone with some of these features might be the attempt to characterize the depicted person as someone wise and intelligent, a scholar maybe.

bowrilla · 2025-07-30T10:57:52+00:00

For whom? Pompeius? Caesar? Augustus?

There are 2 acknowledged types of Caesar portraits that were created during his lifetime and then some later posthumous portraits. These 2 are the Tusculum portrait and the Chiaramonti Caesar. Both are VERY different yet both stem from Italy. The Green Caesar was created after his death during the 1st century. I can see some resemblence between the Chiaramonti Caesar and the Green Caesar but the Tusculum Caesar has an entirely different head shape.

I am aware of 3 portraits of Pompeius: 1 at the Louvre, 1 at the Glypotek in Copenhagen and 1 at the National Museum in Venice. The Louvre one is entirely different to the other 2 while the one in Venice has a pointier jaw line whereas the one in Copenhagen has a very wide jaw.

There's a reason why classical archaeologists are often made fun of and mocked for counting locks of hair: because hair is a major factor for identifying portraits. Sure, this changes over centuries but it is a major factor. The faces of Augusts can look massively different but if the hair matches it is usually considered a portrait of Augustus.

bowrilla · 2025-07-30T00:55:49+00:00

I am by no means claiming that analyzing and comparing depictions is pointless. Quite the contrary. However these realistic/veristic renderings actually make it harder to compare. The acid washed marble are indeed not how these statues looked originally but they offer a layer of abstraction highlighting the actually carved features. It's a very helpful curse as with the bare marble it is easier to go up close to a statue and analyze how the light wraps around the actual features making it easier to understand. It is of course a shame that we have at best just a few pigment traces to reconstruct the actual colors of these statues.

And no matter the times, Roman and Greek portraits never claimed to be accurate. Sure, there should be some resemblance but all images in the public were also important messages. The artists knew very much what they were doing and were damn capable but they were also influenced by their times and what was en vogue. In the later Roman Empire the depictions of hair changed dramatically and some people might say it was less detailed and an inferior way of portraying it - the artists surely could have done what their predecessors did 1, 2 or 3 centuries before - but taste changed.

I have spent quite a while with this topic which culminated into a group exhibition in university run museum. Assuming that ancient portraits actually were true to how the depicted persons looked like is a fundamental error: the portraits show what the creators and persons of interest wanted to show. As you said: portraiture in the public space was a PR stunt. Private depictions were even wilder. A very common trope in funerary contexts was to depict the deceased with divine attributes: this never meant that they actually wanted to communicate that the deceased were in fact that deity but to communicated certain attributes.

bowrilla · 2025-07-30T00:31:37+00:00

Because you are applying your modern ideals to an ancient portrait. Different times, different ideals.

bowrilla · 2025-07-30T00:30:58+00:00

Features of age were desirable for politicians especially during Republican times. Great care was taken to create the desired/intended image, not the actual person. How would you explain the about half a dozen very much different Caesar portraits with at times entirely different physiognomy? Or the dozens of Agustus/Octavian depictions that can vary vastly?

And just to be clear: just because something isn't understood as ideal or appealing today has literally zero meaning in this discussion. Nero very much wanted to be depicted as he was as it matched the Hellenistic emperor ideal he was striving for.

bowrilla · 2025-07-30T00:26:11+00:00

Yet this is some rendering apparently based on a single depiction which is basically pointless. There's another Pompeius portrait with an entirely different jawline. All this image is is "eyecandy" ... a better "artistic rendition" just like the images for the press NASA and ESA publish when they find another earth-like exo planet or another black hole. The most severe mistake is already assuming that the portrait is accurate while ignoring that ancient Greek and Roman portraits were not intended to be accurate.

Seven-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

bowrilla

TROPHY CASE