1. I like having the upstream versions of software instead of it being patched by package maintainers.
2. I like having up to date software. It means that issue trackers for software I use are relevant
3. Doing distro upgrades when they end support never works gracefully and i have to completely reinstall. I’d rather just use a rolling release which in practice works and is supported indefinitely
4. I do like bleeding edge updates. For wine for instance

To be fair, dual booting is not really for people that aren’t very tech savvy. Just thinking about trying to explain partitions to some people I know is giving me a headache

People like to recommend immutable distros like bazzite because in theory they’re much harder to break, but in reality they are a niche community and are nowhere ready for primetime for casual users

It’s actually less trouble. Back when i used ubuntu based distros I ended up using the arch wiki anyway, and I never successfully upgraded from one ubuntu LTS to the next without problems anyway, so I figured why not try the distro that doesn’t have upgrades and has amazing docs. It’s much more stable.

Ritual sacrifice to the penguin god

Yes you’re must likely correct. I was simply pushing back on the other poster talking like ubuntu releases other than lts are unstable/testing releases. They are intended to be stable and usable, which is certainly not the case if they include the core utils replacement as it currently stands.

A test suite from phoronix having issues is certainly enough of a canary in the coalmine that this stuff is not ready for showtime. You have been saying that non-lts ubuntu releases are basically unstable releases but that has never been the intent and is not even what they say.

https://ubuntu.com/about/release-cycle

Every six months between LTS versions, Canonical publishes an interim release of Ubuntu, with 25.04 being the latest example. These are production-quality releases and are supported for 9 months, with sufficient time provided for users to update, but these releases do not receive the long-term commitment of LTS releases.

Key words “production quality”. This sure doesn’t seem “production quality” to me.

Why would something that hasn’t reached sufficient test coverage, or that fails one of the most common test suites around, be put into one of the largest distros around, lts version or not? It’s honestly ridiculous

It’s in the tab overview menu https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tab-overview-menu

Fish and Kate hell yeah 🤜 🤛

so how is this not the default case in Windows?

It actually is now

https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/flatpak-kcm/

Looks like its only optionally required by plasma-meta. I’m not familiar with it but it looks like a GUI for editing settings rather than something fundamental so I’d be surprised if uninstalling it is the source of your issues.

They’re useful for templates because the trailing version is resolved later