A couple of recent news seem to show a new trend against basing a distro on Ubuntu LTS. Is this bad news, or rather a positive development?

First, TUXEDO OS decided to rebase on Debian… testing!

From their official announcement: A new foundation for TUXEDO OS: Switching to Debian:

Many users have noticed that we have reduced our update cadence over the past few months, particularly with regard to Plasma updates. While Plasma 6.7.x is already available, TUXEDO OS is currently still based on Plasma 6.5.x. We have also not yet provided a concrete timeline for when Ubuntu 26.04 LTS will become the foundation of TUXEDO OS for existing users.

As many of you have probably already guessed, there is a good reason for this — one that has already been speculated about on social media. Today, we can finally reveal it and explain why Ubuntu will no longer serve as the foundation of TUXEDO OS in the future.

Why we are leaving Ubuntu

TUXEDO OS follows a hybrid release model that combines the strengths of rolling and point releases. Core components such as web browsers, the graphics stack including NVIDIA drivers, and the Plasma desktop are updated continuously, while the underlying Ubuntu LTS base remains deliberately stable and only receives security updates and carefully selected changes.

However, as an LTS release ages, backporting modern software becomes increasingly difficult. Newer dependencies are often unavailable or only provided in outdated versions, making it significantly more complex to integrate current software reliably into an older package base.

Updating central libraries such as Qt, on which KDE is built, can also cause software from the Ubuntu repositories to stop working correctly. This is not a challenge unique to TUXEDO OS — KDE neon regularly faces the same issue.

Additional reasons relate to Canonical’s strategic direction. It is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the Snap packaging system out of the operating system, as Canonical is distributing more and more applications exclusively as Snap packages while gradually pushing traditional DEB packages into the background.

Another factor is the AI roadmap announced by Canonical CEO Mark Shuttleworth during the Ubuntu Summit 26.04. At this point, its concrete implementation remains insufficiently transparent. In addition, we believe that security updates occasionally take longer to reach users than necessary.

What will become the new foundation of TUXEDO OS?

The most exciting question has a straightforward answer: we are moving to the distribution on which Ubuntu itself is built — Debian. This change provides a much more flexible foundation for our release model and gives us greater technical freedom for the long-term evolution of TUXEDO OS.

Since Debian 13 „Trixie“ deliberately focuses on a conservative software stack, future versions of TUXEDO OS will instead be based on Debian Testing. This is Debian’s development branch, where Debian 14 is continuously taking shape as the next stable release while receiving an ongoing stream of current software.

…

However, TUXEDO OS will not switch to the next Stable branch once Debian 14 is released. Instead, Debian Testing will remain our permanent foundation. We call this model Continuous Debian, allowing us to continue our hybrid release concept on a significantly more suitable base.

…

What are the advantages of the new foundation?

As long as TUXEDO OS is based on Ubuntu, Canonical determines fundamental aspects such as the release cycle, strategic technology decisions like the increasing focus on Snap, and future AI integration. As an Ubuntu derivative, we either have to adopt these decisions or invest considerable effort in working around them.

Debian, by contrast, is not controlled by a single company but developed by a global community of contributors. Debian Testing provides a continuously updated foundation based on long-established principles such as the Debian Social Contract and the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

What changes for TUXEDO OS users?

…

Going forward, TUXEDO OS will use the Btrfs file system by default, together with automatic system snapshots and rollback functionality powered by Snapper, a solution that has proven itself for many years in openSUSE.

Btrfs and Snapper

Before every package management operation — such as installing updates or new software — the system automatically creates a snapshot. Should anything go wrong, you can restore your system to its previous working state within minutes. You can also create snapshots manually whenever needed, for example before making configuration changes.

Over the coming weeks, we will publish a dedicated blog post explaining Btrfs and snapshots in greater detail. TUXEDO OS will use Btrfs by default for installations performed through WebFAI as well as on all new systems. The ISO installer will also preselect Btrfs, although you will still be free to choose a different file system.

…

Implementation

…

For technical reasons, a reliable and safe crossgrade from the Ubuntu-based version to the new Debian-based release will not be possible

…

If, as an existing TUXEDO OS user, you would prefer to remain on an Ubuntu-based platform, we will provide a straightforward migration path to Kubuntu 26.04.

The good, the bad, and the ugly:

  • Getting rid of Ubuntu is a good thing.
  • Choosing Debian is a sound decision. However, basing on Debian Testing makes TUXEDO OS a rolling-release distro, with diminished stability, reliability, and even security—so, is it a bad choice? At the same time, Debian stable releases as infrequently as Ubuntu LTS; therefore, just switching from Ubuntu LTS to Debian stable wouldn’t have solved the impossibility of upgrading to a newer KDE. (There are backports in both distros, but KDE isn’t backported, AFAIK.)
  • Snapshots are good. Automatic snapshots before each package update are stupid and filling your SSD with shit. It reminds me of Windows’ restore points. It might be a wise decision, though, in the context of using Debian testing!
  • Btrfs is an indicator of mental deficiency. Whoever believes that Btrfs is a better file system must be mentally retarded. Any COW filesystem is slowly killing your SSD, regardless of what the proponents of COW claim. Snapshots are easier when using Btrfs, but Btrfs is really shitty. Fortunately, one will still be able to select another file system.

My case against Btrfs

Btrfs is my personal enemy. Here’s a quick selection of arguments from previous comments (not posts):

① July 2024: On Btrfs requiring a lot of free disk space. I even gave links to reports from people. But before that:

Btrfs requires a lot of free disk space, at least 15-20%. And that’s not just to have temporary space for copy-on-write, nor just to facilitate the garbage collection and defragmentation.

Even if you don’t use snapshots or create additional subvolumes, Btrfs still requires more free space than traditional filesystems. Given that Btrfs uses B-trees to manage file and directory metadata, such metadata requires a lot of space (and it’s redundant, meaning there are several copies of it).

Then, Btrfs allocates space in chunks of, by default, 1GB for data and 256MB for metadata. Even if only a small portion of the chunk is used, the entire chunk is reserved.

So it’s easy to run out of disk space.

② July 2024: On Btrfs having data-eating bugs.

③ August 2024: In 10 tests out of 10, Btrfs was the slowest filesystem, sometimes 2-3 times slower than XFS!

④ March 2026: Btrfs offers less than HALF THE SPEED of XFS, yet tens of millions of retards have it for their God!

⑤ March 2026: Btrfs Performance From Linux 6.12 To Linux 7.0 Shows Regressions (Phoronix), and the chart clearly show it’s literally about 2 times slower than XFS and EXT4.

⑥ May 2026: Even without a copy-on-write filesystem, there’s a write amplification issue with SSDs, so Btrfs is literally killing your SSD similarly to how smoking kills people: it’s not guaranteed, but it can happen, and life is shortened anyway.

So yeah, Btrfs is a litmus test for the lack of judgment.

Dedoimedo is, once again, angry at Linux

Nothing new here, just the same old Dedo: In Linux, things are often upside down.

But this is in the context of his use of Kubuntu LTS!

More recently, I came across two reports that simply made less sense to me. One is the supposed success of Wayland, with 95% of users running it as default in the latest version of KDE. The second is the decision to include and remove certain software in KDE Linux, KDE’s take on atomic distros. Let us debate this, shall we. And before we move on, may I remind you that I use Plasma as my desktop in all my Linux production systems, all Kubuntu to be more precise, and that it is quite definitely the best desktop around, and that I’m very happy with the rising trajectory of KDE in the past couple of years. But never a fanboy, I am not blind to nor supportive of potential pitfalls and problems in open source, and I dearly want to help the wider community avoid them, if possible.

His complaints are legitimate.

First and foremost, Wayland:

Let’s start with the Wayland “statistics”, and why they are meaningless:

  • Originally, KDE planned to support X11 until Plasma 7.0. This was an arbitrary cutoff date, not based on any achievements in the Wayland stack.
  • Then, this was arbitrarily changed to Plasma 6.8. Simultaneously, Kubuntu decided to drop X11 in the 26.04 LTS as the default option, and even remove the X11 desktop session, even though Ubuntu does include the necessary packages in its repos (and will support them for 10 years), and despite the fact Wayland still does not have functional parity with the “legacy” framework.
  • Wayland gets pushed more and more aggressively, even when it’s not warranted. That said, the framework is improving, and I have reported this, twice, both in my Plasma 6.5 review and in my Kubuntu 26.04 review. Yes, Wayland is getting better. Even I say that. But it is still not good enough.
  • Now, we have “data” that shows Wayland supposedly being so nice the majority of people uses it.

It’s worth noting that he really believes Kubuntu to be the best choice for a KDE distro. So he might stay with Kubuntu 26.04 LTS (with Ubuntu Pro) for quite some years, just to avoid Wayland:

At the same time, I will also note this: In Kubuntu 26.04, the X11 session works just fine, besides, it is the default for several other flavors of Ubuntu. That means, at the bare minimum, you will have good desktop usability until 2031, perhaps 2036, with the extended PRO updates. By then, KDE should improve Wayland significantly enough that it will be truly good for everyday use. I hope.

And all this said, I will happily use Wayland if and when it becomes capable enough. If and when. There’s no zeal on my side, no devotion to technology. Just usability. Give me good tech, and I won’t complain. But don’t give me average tech and call it gold. That won’t do.

Will Dedoimedo ever consider moving to something else, both distro-wise and DE-wise? If he wants to avoid Wayland, I guess XFCE is currently the best candidate. Debian with XFCE, maybe?

Among the many other complaints, this one is something that I couldn’t understand:

Another wee announcement in KDE’s monthly rollup – the inclusion of the new NTFS kernel driver, and the removal of the userspace ntfs-3g utility. If you’ve read my NTFS saga recently, you can imagine my skepticism and perhaps even wonder. The new kernel driver has not proven itself yet. The old one has proven itself buggy, and I lost data with it. The userspace utility is slow but reliable. And tiny. Why remove it? I find it paradoxical that atomic distros ship with these huge app containers, the updates are massive, but a few measly KB of filesystem support? Nah.

But then, there’s also the removal of fuse2. The justification is that it’s insecure (mkay, local attack surface), and that developers of software that rely on this library (mostly old AppImages) should fix their stuff. And this is exactly the sort of upside down logic in Linux!

Why, the various NTFS drivers have nothing to do with KDE! Also, I couldn’t find in Nate’s This month in KDE Linux any reference to NTFS! Dedoimedo should have provided a link to the source of its claims. Who removed the userspace ntfs-3g utility and where?

But again, will Dedoimedo ever leave Kubuntu?

The news that never came: Mint

Ever since Clem announced that Linux Mint 23, based on Ubuntu 26.04 LTS, “is scheduled for Christmas this year,” I keep hoping that he’ll find the new major release too problematic and that, confronted with the increasingly difficult task of “dezombification” of Ubuntu (snaps and whatnot), he’ll throw in the towel and declare he’ll focus on LMDE.

I’m afraid this ain’t going to happen.

The Linux Mint Monthly News – June 2026 delivered different news:

Note: The improvements and features mentioned in this blog post are planned for the next version of Linux Mint, which is scheduled for Christmas this year.

Wayland

We worked really hard on Wayland and we got to the point where it feels solid and the experience is almost on par with X11. Wayland support will no longer be considered “experimental”. In the next version of Cinnamon, both X11 and Wayland will be fully supported.

The current “experimental” status of Wayland in Cinnamon was already quite good. I manually enabled it in LMDE 7, and then I scaled to 125%, and it seemed to work on my antiquated 14″ Acer from 2016. I might keep using it just for the sake of monitoring the evolution of Cinnamon. Otherwise, my newer 14″ Lenovo IdeaPad 5 runs happily at 100% scaling because XFCE can’t do otherwise, but font sizes can easily be changed, unlike in Windows 11.

Will Clem realize that he should focus on LMDE?

To call a spade a spade: will people return to Debian?