My quick thoughts after using Zorin OS and switching to it 100%: Zorin OS is a blessing for anyone who wants to ditch Windows and migrate somewhere else (especially without having to pay a premium for Mac OS and getting locked into Apple's ecosystem, which isn't necessarily a horrible thing, but it's undeniable there's a premium involved that limits user choice). When Microsoft announced that Windows 11 would start to require online accounts just to use the OS, that was what did it for me (in addition to other things). I had to use a workaround just to create a local account when installing Windows 11, but even then, there were occasional reminders of where the OS is headed (e.g., needing a Microsoft account just to use Copilot, which I didn't like). Kudos to ZorinGroup for creating Zorin OS. Happy to be a "pro" customer and support the developers' vision for what Linux should be.
I do have some feedback, though, for ZorinGroup. Read on ...
Suggest that you guys vet software more before releasing full OS versions. On Zorin OS 17 Pro, the Flatpak version of VLC didn't play nice (e.g., with the file picker window opening behind VLC and to the side). Thankfully, though, the APT version works well. One other example of this also is Cheese. The version (APT) included with Zorin doesn't work right. Flatpak does.
Please include Timeshift (or some other backup option) by default in Zorin OS. Linux Mint has Timeshift, and I thought it was a smart move on their part to include something like it by default (without the user having to go and install it separately; it was nice to have it right there for convenience's sake). I have made a full backup of my system, and feel more "secure" knowing I have a restore point I can go back to if something goes wrong.
Please (please!) integrate Gnome Tweaks functionality into Zorin OS. I don't know how I could use any Linux distro without Gnome Tweaks or at least a built-in toggle for window centering (like how Linux Mint has, for example). It is very distracting as an user to constantly have programs pop up to the left on the screen when you're looking straight at the monitor front and center. Not to the left. It's very, very, very counterintuitive. Frankly, I wouldn't be using Zorin OS if it wasn't for Gnome Tweaks. I would be using Linux Mint for that reason. Zorin OS differentiates itself as a Windows alternative by way of offering an UI that emulates Windows' UI and makes it easier for new Linux users to transition over from the Windows ecosystem to Linux. Why not make window behavior and management the same as what is done on Windows (or even Linux Mint)? That'd add to the appeal of Zorin OS, for sure.
Have WINE files ready without having to install it from the software center.
Last piece of feedback is to re-evaluate what software is included. Zorin could benefit from more useful software. Example: Startup Disk Creator.
That's it. Thanks for this OS; keep up the good work.
I don't think so. Not every PC has the storage capacity needed for Timeshift snapshots. Backup of user directories by Deja Vu would be a more balanced option.
Good idea. It is desirable to avoid duplication and conflicts between Gnome Tweaks and Zorin OS settings.
Simply, just no. Many consider WINE only as a bloat and indeed it is for someone who does not use Windows software at all and decide to run bare bones Linux software. However, I agree on bringing to it attention, making it more easy to install, for example, on the installation procedure or post-installation procedure (like OnlyOffice)
Again, personal preferences. One OS can't fulfil the needs of everyone. But better discoverability can be achieved in the Software center.
I understand what you're saying, but I'm inclined to disagree with this point. The reality is that at some point users of ZorinOS will have to face a choice when installing certain packages. But until then, offering a reliable and stable selection of packages that suit the most cases seems like a sane default.
But I will agree with integrating more of Gnome Tweaks' settings into Zorin Appearance. There are some very basic settings that people have come to expect, and that would make the user experience that much more interesting.
I'm also not opposed to the idea of having some of the most popular software choices offered as an option during the OS installation. A lot of people do end up installing Timeshift and WINE, so why not allow them to check a box and customize their experience right away?
ZoringGroup does a great deal of testing as well as relying on user assistance in testing prior to release. In computing, testing is never 100% capable of spotting all bugs.
While your experience was that one packaging format worked better in one case, the opposite was true for you in a different case.
I firmly believe that the User Base is the strongest asset for testing. This is because no matter how many checklists you have and how many tests you run; the user base will branch out much further, performing different actions and trying different software that you never thought of.
I agree with both of these.
Timeshift can be a lifesaver and having it at the ready is a boon. It is true that any user can install it independently or that some may call it bloat. But if a user can install software independently, so, too can they remove it.
Timeshift as a base install does not take up very much space at all. It is the snapshots later that swell into large data hogs. So limiting the saved back-ups is helpful on that point.
Zorin OS uses a Gnome Settings page that the ZorinGroup includes. But many users are familiar with the layout and design of Gnome Tweaks and Gnome Tweaks is already developed and maintained.
Zorin OS used to come with Wine pre-installed.
Due to user feedback, the ZorinGroup opted to compromise on this; Having Wine ready in the repositories with an Easy Installation (sudo apt install zorin-windows-app-support) rather than pre-installed.
I agree with this set up. There are many good reasons for it.
Wine is independent but it is also expansive. It can need a lot of support and troubleshooting.
Which Wine version you use can have a direct impact on performance.
Wine is bulky and many users are seeking to ween themselves off of Windows and use more native GnuLinux apps.
Having Wine pre-installed may mean users will think it is the better option and ignore more simple and elegant solutions in favor of trying to use Wine for things that they do not need it for.
In Windows OS, we all were long accustomed to the O.S. or the O.S. developer making decisions on behalf of the user. In GnuLinux, this is the very thing many users are attempting to escape. Decisions made on behalf of the user must be more limited.
In many things, we are on a path. As they say - a journey. Where we are on that path may not be where we are tomorrow.
Choosing Zorin OS or any other Distro is a step forward on that path, not the conclusion of that path.
As you walk, new paths may open and old ones may close. It is important to remain flexible and revel in Freedom. To let go of the rigidity of the O.S. of the past.
This is something I realize as well. I had been frustrated with Japanese text editors on Windows. They stuck to the 90's user interface or poor performance. But even Gedit, pre-installed in Zorin OS, was better than any app I had known before.
Thank you, everyone, for your responses. Much appreciated. I sincerely hope one or both of the Zorin brothers actually reads enough of these forum posts to get a legitimate sense of what their customers are saying, and keep their fingers on the pulse of the Zorin OS community. Thanks to all again.
"Core" should be just that. Kept small and simple, but with easy to install extras from Software Store.
I am also not keen on the idea of more choices and check-box ticking at installation. That should also be kept as simple as possible to avoid confusion and mistakes at stage 1 of a users ZorinOS experience.
I believe Deja Dup (aka Backups) is standard issue with Core, if Timeshift etc is prefered then that can be added.
Remember, not all users have big HDD's or tons of RAM. They may be salvaging and running ZorinOS on PC's otherwise destined for landfill.
I did notice with the upgrade, and having pipeline installed, that my sound now worked without speakers or headphones or blue-tooth, and multiple sound sources as well. Success! Way to go 17!
I think options are good but maybe with checked off boxes so the advanced user can just breeze through the menu. I think core should come with some preinstalled utilities (for example those mentioned in the first post). I think Zorin OS-lite should come with the minimum.
Honestly, while I do like the idea, there's a very strong case to be made that simplifying things is more desirable for those who are less familiar with Linux. Those who on the other hand know their way around the system should have no difficulties in modifying the default installation to their liking.
In Zorin OS, the difference between Core and Lite is the desktop environment, not what you assume. It has long been discussed that the names of these editions are confusing, though.
Good to know. Love Zorin OS Pro! I have been recommending it to friends. I look forward to being a Zorin OS user for a long time to come. That said, I sincerely hope they integrate Gnome Tweaks into the OS and/or make major changes to Zorin OS' window behavior and management aspects that make it way more Windows-like for end users. That would be most appreciated, especially if it was made part of a 17.1 release. (Hey, one can only hope, right?)
Is Wayland the right choice as default setting on ZorinOS?
Maybe that question warrants a separate discussion thread in "Chat about Zorin" unless there is a simple answer.
I am puzzled by this choice by Zorin devs. Maybe I missed seeing some big step change in Wayland development and software compatibility.
I'd be interested in knowing the developers' thinking on Wayland, too. Perhaps they can do a blog post about it sometime soon? Be nice to have insight from them.
I am also puzzled by this choice. Partly it is likely a "go with the flow of progress". Proponents of Wayland argue that people just dislike change and it needs to be done. Except that such an argument must have a foundation of support with working software and sound reasoning.
Wayland delivers more promises than results.
What troubles me the most is that systems that ran perfectly fine on Xorg on 20.04/Zorin OS 16 suddenly is sluggish on Xorg on 22.04/ Zorin OS 17.
Why is Xorg suddenly sluggish when Wayland is the default but it wasn't in the previous release when Wayland was not default?
Why is this sudden sluggishness exclusive to Gnome D.E.?
In reality, people do not dislike change. People enact on change all the time. Bringing about changes by their own will, even. Rather, people show a resistance to change when the change brings about harmful effects that stimulate fear and consequences.
People trend toward fearing change when change offers a threatening element.
There is good reason for this as many changes are enforced in order to deprive people of something. This is to facilitate control over those people or prevent something unwanted by the enforcers.
I don't dislike change, otherwise I wouldn't be on Linux in the first place; what I dislike is change for the sake of change. If something isn't broken, don't fix it. That's my philosophy anyway.
Of course I'm happy to see projects like Wayland getting more attention as they continue to mature, but why being pushy about it when it's clear that it still has quite a few rough edges? X11 has been around for decades and works fine. Wayland, while younger, already has 15 years of development... so it's track record is not looking so hot thus far.
I wouldn't know about that, personally I've only run into a few minor annoyances here and there, nothing deal breaking (although certainly not welcome, either).
What makes Wayland desirable is that it allows direct communication server side. It is simpler and more efficient.
However, that trait is also what causes it the biggest problem with it. Which makes that flaw a deep crack rather than a surface edge.
Repairing Wayland is not a polishing job, but a foundational one.
This core to how Wayland works necessitates that all other software and applications must be adapted to Wayland, rather than Wayland being adaptable to an existing market. That is a very big flaw and it is very difficult to get all other maintainers and developers to change all their work to adapt to Wayland. This is worsened by Waylands inability to maintain network transparency with servers and other flaws that convince software makers to shun broken Wayland.
(Hey, one can only hope, right?)