If Zorin did not exist which distro are you switching to?

What do they do that Ubuntu 20.04 does not in this regard? Do they apply updates to non-Zorin packages?

I'm glad Gnome has extensions, but honestly some functionality is so basic that should be part of the Gnome itself. Even if you can disable it later, but without needing to go after extensions that may or may not be left unattended for ages...

Gnome is designed for their specific workflow. They do not want to make it clunky and slower by adding a lot of things that people do not need. This is why the extension system is there in the first place.

The more you have going on the slower your system will be. The Gnome interface is meant to be very minimalist. I personally am a pretty big fan of the stock Gnome interface as I have mentioned I am a bit torn between it and a Windows-like

I know, I know... :face_exhaling: I just want a normal desktop where I can quickly create a text file or something. I swear I will delete it later!


Multiple feeds to watch for patches and updates, I think. I am not sure and I have wondered,myself. It may be many things, such as their own testing that catches something, that they do a lot of troubleshooting for Zorin OS Pro users and have a lot of experience... There may even be a luck and timing factor.
They have their trade secrets that give their advantage and I am not about to pry.
Why is it that Zorin OS tends to show better CPU performance than either Ubuntu or Xubuntu?
I have no idea.
In interactions with the ZorinGroup, I can tell you that they are very intelligent and well organized.

Gnome prefers a form of minimalism to ensure users break as little as possible. The extensions exist not with Gnomes Blessing, but because users were frustrated over missing functionality. Gnome Dev actually condemns extensions.
If Gnome had their way- there would be no extensions and stock Gnome was all you would get.
Check Tobias Bernards blog for more. They are displeased with extensions as a whole.

I just do not entirely agree with this. There is literally a "gnome-extensions" command integrated into stock Gnome. I am with you in the fact that they are not fans. But they have helped extensions and from what I understand (can not seem to find the info right now) put the system in place in the first place.

LOL. I love this reply



Why you use Lite instead of Core? Not that you are wrong, just curious to your reasoning.

I ran Zorin Lite myself for a while and really liked it, but decided the performance gain was not worth the little drawbacks of XFCE.

Also you did not answer the original question. What is your #2 distro? :smiley:

For me, Gnome is too restricted and much to like Microsoft Windows.
XFCE gives me far fewer problems and strange troubleshooting. It is a full-featured desktop environment instead of being Stripped down like Gnome.
It has a full Window Manager.
It has greater customization.
As a bonus - it is much lighter on its feet than Gnome.

When I started out, I used Zorin OS Core. I spent a great deal of time trying to configure it (painfully) to suit my needs and flow. When I tested Zorin OS Lite, all those troubles and patching and fixing and configuring went away. On Lite, the settings make changing things to suit me fast and simple.
Whereas on Gnome, I had to get into Gsettings too often - it reminded me of doing Regedit on Windows. Hacky.

Plus Gnome is so unpolished. Widgets do not line up with each other. They overlap each other. The different windows can have a different appearance based on whether it uses 'window' or 'notebook > stack'. An example would be the Sound Recorder that has a tin and very square border (notebook > stack) even though the Gnome apps (window) have rounded corners all the way around.
On Gnome the headerbar / titlebar would vary in size from window to window depending on what buttons were included in the csd headers. On XFCE, that is window managed and it is all polished and consistent instead of being a clunky variable like Gnome.


MX Linux.

Exactly. What works for us as individuals is quite diverse. It is what makes greatness in Linux - that we have this diversity. This is why One Linux Desktop, like Gnome, should not try to be the only Linux desktop.


I'd probably end up with Mint. I've toyed with Nobura KDE, and liked it, but the support via discord is not ideal. I prefer the Zorin Forum style.

I think that the biggest flaw in Zorin (and many other distros) is the mechanism that jumps focus when saving a file from the file name to the search input. WTF??? I don't for the life of me understand this. Doesn't seem to be an issue with KDE, my only reason for considering a change.

1 Like

Ever word you said about Gnome and XFCE is true. I personally like how Gnome makes making accidental changes more difficult and the look is better (imo at least)

I honestly also like the stock Gnome workflow quite a bit to the point to I am not sure which I prefer.

This makes a ton of sense.

I will never insult any of y'all intellectually or personally (if I do let me know). Most of our differences are mostly on the philosophical side to where there is no right or wrong answer.

I never thought about that with Nobara. That is a valid point. Most of the time when I have issues I am able to solve them myself so a forum is not a huge selling point for me. (Unless it is like this one where I particularly like the community)


I'm not sure when does this happen, can you give an example?

1 Like

I do not... One thing that really irks me about Stock Gnome is that when I open a new application or window, it opens as Minimized on the panel. Most no other desktop does this. And it adds an extra step. I realize that is a small step, but when you are not used to your recent launches or opens not appearing open in front of you, it is very disruptive.
Hamburger icons (that are reduced in what they offer, even) are no replacement to a filled out Toolbar with all your tools laid out organized.
And hiding my tools in Menus and... which menu is it in? I don't know where to look, is also no replacement for a visible toolbar.
For me, Gnome is very difficult to work in. They want to hide everything. Even in Gedit, your ctlrl+f is too out of the way. Saving the file means using a shortcut instead of hitting the Save button.
They minimize it to the point that you spend more time Learning How to Work On Gnome than you do working on your project.

After a time, a user probably gets used to it and learns how to work with what Gnome offers. But for me, I would rather just get to work on my projects instead of conforming to the Desktops Demands.

Opposite of KDE's Plasma, eh?
It is very difficult to make accidental changes on XFCE, but on XFCE, the settings are organized and laid out in a logical manner. It is much easier to find and revert a change. Whereas with Gnome, you probably need to search the issue or even ask on a forum. On KDE... hit your computer with a hammer 27 times.

That confused me, too. A screen record may work wonders for that one. I could not picture the description in my head.

1 Like

I would say this is probably true at least to a degree. I did not like stock Gnome for a long time.

But what I do like about it is that it is extremely space efficient and it has limited distractions so I can focus on what I am working on. I am also a huge fan of Gnome's extremely powerful window spread that works everywhere and every time no matter what you are doing.

But I acknowledge that unless you are a keyboard driven multi-tasker (I mostly am not) it is slower to switch between applications in stock Gnome than it is in a Windows interface.

Also what on earth is the reasoning behind no minimize and maximize buttons in stock Gnome? I really would like to hear if anybody understands what they are thinking

This is exactly why I am not a fan of KDE personally. It is extremely powerful, the most powerful of any desktop environment but it comes at the cost of accidental changes which I can not stand. I want my computer to work the same way every time any deviation bothers me.

I have made accidental changes in XFCE but it is no where near as often as it is with KDE for me.


There is much to Gnome to like. While I am often critical of Gnome, it is biased more by what Gnome is doing to Linux as a whole, than by what they do on their desktop. A person may note that while I do not use Most all other (there are so many) desktops, I am only critical of Gnome.
Plasma - I am honest about, but I also am supportive of it.
LXDE, XFCE, Mate, Cinnamon, Enlightenment - all get praise from me even if I can offer suggestions on how they might improve.
Gnome stands apart. It does so because it vies for dominance. And it does so at the users expense.

Again: Tobias Bernards blog.
They wish to switch Gnome over to be much more like how Mobile Android behaves and performs. They are convinced that that is the future.
They want to be first to offer that future.

The reality, however, is that Mobile is as it is due to it being a far more limited environment than a Desktop PC is. Mobile performs and behaves in such a limited fashion because it is NOT a computer.
Keeping a computer as a computer is essential for productive work flow. We use our computers for computing. We use mobile as fast access, quick snippets and entertainment sitting on the bus.


I have always taken Gnome as taking a more "Apple-like" mentality. Believing that for the most part the user needs to use the computer the way they (Gnome) thinks you should. That uses having more control is not in the users best interest.

But I have got to say Ive got to agree with you about the "no minimize and no maximize thing". I can not think of any benefit to the user and have wondered about that for years. That is a stock Gnome decision I will never agree with.

I 150% agree with this. Windows 8 was a DISASTER because of this mentality. I absolutely hated it.

One thing I will give Apple credit for is they at least understood they are 2 separate markets.


Exactly, yes. Though our examples differ - we definitely agree on their mentality.

And... of course... I disagree with Gnome. It is the same mentality Android and Microsoft both use.
It is one that says the users are dumb and need to be controlled.
See... on this forum, I could fall into that trap while troubleshooting with users about their issues. And many I.T. personnel eagerly fall into that trap, almost throwing themselves into it.
But the exact opposite happens. The users will even say outright things like, "I am new to Linux." "I can't do this." "No terminal, please." "I am not a technical person, not a programmer, not a coder..."
And Each Time, I say
"You can do this." "You are capable and able." "Believe in yourself - Try. You got this." And each time, they get it.
They do it.
They succeed.

We are not dumb. We do not need to be controlled. We only need Help In Learning.
Much of I.T. teaches people that they can't and relies on them relying on I.T. People are routinely taught by Windows and other sources to Not Believe in themselves. And fear allows them to go along with it.

1 Like

I partly agree with this. I do not think users are dumb but I do think that most users would prefer to give up a bit of control to reduce the likelihood of unintended results.

On a slightly different but related topic I do not think using Linux is any more difficult than using Windows. It is simply different.

Is "sudo apt install firefox" more difficult than finding an exe and installing it? (and liable to be other junk with it that you did not want)

I have got to say this is true and I had never thought of it that way.


Yes, many would. And we are taught to do so, along with it being the general nature of being a living thing to seek out the path of least resistance. Least effort.

But humans are capable of appreciating putting in effort and enjoying the results, too. Some people like to learn, some prefer not to have to learn. But most people can enjoy learning and getting benefits from it.
Another Idea:
It does not have to be a choice of giving up control.
The control can be in place, but not easily tampered with unless you know what you are doing.
As an example:
Running the dangerous terminal command rm -rf could come with a warning that says, "This command will wipe your entire hard drive and on newer drives may brick the device. Are you sure you wish to proceed?"
Instead of blocking all access to the command.
The option of blocking access and limiting user freedom and controls... Well, it does not go well: