Zorin OS software comes from several layers, and understanding these layers helps explain why you sometimes see multiple sources for the same application.
At its foundation, Zorin OS is built on Ubuntu, which itself is based on Debian. Debian provides the original .deb packaging format and the core package management tools such as dpkg and apt. Ubuntu takes these packages, adapts them, and maintains its own repositories. Zorin OS then adds its own repositories and refinements on top of Ubuntu, focusing on usability, stability, and good desktop integration.
When you install software from the Zorin OS or Ubuntu source, you are getting packages that are maintained by Debian, Ubuntu, and or the Zorin OS team. These packages are tested to work well with the system and are tightly integrated with the desktop, themes, file system, and system services.
These applications are often well optimized for the operating system and feel very native. However, they are not always the latest available versions, since stability is usually prioritized over rapid updates. They are also not sandboxed, which means they have normal access to your system and files. This approach is efficient and flexible, but from a security perspective it provides less isolation if an application were ever compromised.
This is where sandboxing becomes relevant.
Sandboxing means that an application runs in an isolated environment with limited access to the rest of the system. Flatpak follows this model. Flatpak applications bundle most of their dependencies and are granted permissions only for what they actually need, such as access to specific folders, devices, or network features.
The advantages of Flatpak include better security through isolation, very easy installation and removal, access to more up to date software versions, and no risk of breaking system libraries.
The trade-offs include increased disk usage, slightly slower startup times in some cases, and some unfamiliar behavior caused by sandboxing.
As a practical example, if you use Betterbird as a Flatpak and want to add an email attachment, you may notice that the file picker does not show every folder by default. This is not a bug. It is the sandbox restricting access. You can still grant access or select files explicitly, and everything works correctly, but the behavior differs from that of a non sandboxed application.
Over time, Linux has developed multiple ways to distribute software. These include .deb packages from Debian and Ubuntu, Snap packages from Ubuntu, distribution specific repositories such as those provided by Zorin OS, and universal formats like Flatpak and others.
Snap, which is used heavily by Ubuntu, also relies on sandboxing. Its advantages include automatic updates and strong isolation. Its disadvantages include slower startup times, less community control, and a closer tie to Ubuntu’s infrastructure.
Flatpak focuses primarily on desktop applications, works across many Linux distributions, and is widely supported by the Linux community. Its main downsides are higher disk usage and occasional sandbox related quirks.
In practice, there is no single correct or incorrect choice.
Core system components, drivers, development tools, and tightly integrated utilities are usually best installed from Zorin OS or Ubuntu repositories. Desktop applications, media players, communication tools, and applications where security and easy removal matter are often good candidates for Flatpak.
Linux is fundamentally about choice and flexibility. Zorin OS offers multiple paths so you can decide what best fits your workflow, comfort level, and priorities.
Personally, I follow a loose hierarchy. I keep drivers and system components on distribution specific sources. I install command line tools primarily from the system repositories as well. As a second tier, I use packages from the parent distributions, in the case of Zorin OS, Ubuntu and Debian. After that come independent distribution mechanisms such as Flatpak, AppImage, and Snap.
These formats have different origins. Snap, as mentioned earlier, comes from Ubuntu. What I appreciate about Flatpak is its licensing model and the fact that it is fully community driven. Snap is largely controlled by Canonical, which makes it a more tightly supervised packaging system and not everyone’s preferred option.
When politics and emotions are set aside, both Snap and Flatpak are valid and usable choices.
