a beta will be available netrunner 18? :huh: :huh: (google tranlate 
)
There is some stuff going on at the moment.
We will make a proper announcement when itâs ready.
What does this mean? A little bit more information please âŚ
Ciao!
Dieter
Just be patient.
At the moment I canât get into much details.
ok, we are patient since April, so some months more will be ok 
Ciao!
Dieter
I have just read an interesting comparison between Ubuntu, Kubuntu and Ubuntu with Gnome, all 16.04. Plasma seems to be the lightest of the three but at the same time Kubuntu is the slowest to shut down. What a pity Neon wasnât in the test.
But the more interesting for me is mentioned in a side note: Ubuntu has set the I/O scheduler to âdeadlineâ instead of cfq (originally to work around a unity bug as I read in another article) - and that slows down the desktop a lot. As Neon is based on Ubuntu - and Netrunner will be based on Neon - what about the scheduler? Does/will it default to deadline or cfq?
http://www.hecticgeek.com/2016/05/ubuntu-16-04-flavors-comparison/
I/O Scheduler defaults to deadline as this is what is set as default in the ubuntu kernel.
The rule of thumb looks like this:
CFQ: best for desktop use with spinning hard-disks.
NOOP: best with solid state disks.
Deadline: best for database systems with high performance disks.
Also please check these tests:
http://www.ilsistemista.net/index.php/linux-a-unix/38-linux-i-o-schedulers-benchmarked-anticipatory-vs-cfq-vs-deadline-vs-noop.html
You will find out that the CFQ and Deadline schedulers are not that much different and in most tasks perform similarly. The only difference is that while CFQ performs better with classic HDDs, Deadline is better with SSDs and high performant disks. So it all comes down to what hardware you have, but in any case, the difference should not be very visible. Anyway, I donât really understand how a desktop environment can be perceived as much slower due to a disk scheduler, when the desktop is loaded into RAM during boot 
I donât think that the slow shutdown is caused by the disk scheduler. Moreover, if you want a more responsive desktop, you can always install a lowlatency kernel.
The ârule of thumbâ is theory. Itâs âfunnyâ and maybe not obvious, but a desktop (!) system with CFQ really feels more perfomant (in the wild) than a system with deadline - for SSD it more of less might not matter, but for classic HDDs for sure and it is significant. Even if it might not be more performant in a benchmark it feels more performant at classic desktop usage. Especially KDE and Baloo search had some problems/slow downs with deadline. Baloo has been kind of âfixedâ AFAIK.
I only have links in German language:
http://www.pcwelt.de/ratgeber/Optimales_SSD-Timing_fuer_Linux-Mehr_Tempo-8674837.html
http://forum.kubuntu-de.org/index.php?topic=17777.msg113572#msg113572
and an older one in Englisch:
https://blogs.kde.org/2014/10/15/ubuntus-linux-scheduler-or-why-baloo-might-be-slowing-your-system-1404