Zorin 17.3?

Okay, I see your pain and frustration, and I apologize for criticizing you. I am writing this on an old i5-9500t, and the speed is absolutely fine with the 6.8 kernels, so I do not see the issue. One of my machines has an AMD-CPU, and THAT had an issue with one certain kernel (6.8.0-48 or 49 - it is fixed in the 51 and 52 kernels), so your issue, too, may be hardware-related?

It is possible that, despite staying on an older kernel, certain fixes are backported, but from your description, this hasn't happened. A company usually fixes an issue when enough people complain about it (this is just a sad reality), and possibly, not enough people have complained about the lag and slowness.

3 Likes

Well that was a very discreet update! I'm pleased though, it has been seamless for me.

I really think the issue on kernel is that Zorin has a wide user base of current and old machines. So if 6.11/12 had been released the upshot might have been a lot of people with freezing desktops. We have an old machine from 2006 with only 2 Gb 400 MHz RAM (Maxed out I might add), 512 Mb 8x AGP graphics, and a single Athlon 64 processor. It is running Q4OS and that uses kernel 6.1 (Plasma). Have to do updates via tty or the machine freezes. Losing the desktop widgets has helped. I also run Q40S 5.7 Aquarius on this rig and 6.1 is fast enough for me too.
It is horses for courses, but I do agree that more communication would have probably settled things down for those expecting a newer kernel. In terms of Browsers I am holding onto: zen, palemoon, and chromium.

I understand your frustration, but i do have to agree with @jkomarek that this may be a hardware issue.

While i haven't experienced lag or slowness in the OS, i have been running into consistent freezes within the OS. I found out a while ago that those freezes were related to the activities thing being bound to the super key, i just stopped using that and those freezes no longer happen. Thats about the only issue i've ran into in Zorin.

EDIT: I am also on a higher-end system. i7-12700K, 32 GB DDR5 RAM, RTX 3060

3 Likes

I agree, I was on windows monthes ago and here my old laptop with old i3 and 16GB ram was slow as hell even with fresh windows 11 install. I've tested many many distro before peek my choice to Zorin and my laptop reborn, sure it took me some days to tame the "beast" but it's just great for now.
And all guys who encounter problem have sometimes a newer computer, and to fix some slowness they update kernel and problems are often solved.
I prefer stability over customization, even if you search a little you can have a beautiful environement.

PS: sorry for my english it's not my natural language.

2 Likes

I think this is a 2-Side Thing. On the one Side, You have People with the 6.8 Kernel, who don't have Problems (like me for Example) and People, who have Problems. And for them the Solution is to install a newer Kernel - which isn't something bad. Sometimes You need a newer Kernel because it supports the own Hardware better.

But when now Zorin would bring in a newer Kernel by thereown, it could help Users like @Omnimaxus but it could cause Issues for other Users who don't have Problems now. Then You would say ''You have to install/use the older Kernel''.

And this is at the End the same Situation like now where You say ''You have to install a newer Kernel''. At the End there is no Winner and it doesn't matter what Zorin would do, it is wrong.

And there is the Work for Zorin to Care about the Kernel, Kernel-Updates, Compatibility and Firmware.

4 Likes

While this is always possible, the kernel in question was vetted; the 6.11 kernel was tested. Otherwise, the ZorinGroup would not have announced it.

This too, is performed by Canonical.

The ZorinGroup do additional work. But it should be clear that they are not patching the kernel, or supplying its updates; they are piping them down from Canonical.
The kernel... Is Complex. It manages much more than just hardware drivers.
And it affects more than just hardware.

I do not believe that the ZorinGroup made a mistake in announcing the 6.11 kernel.
Nor do I blame Omnimaxus for his disappointment, either.

It amounts to an unfortunate situation. These are things we can learn from; but as with all things, it is critical to learn the right lessons.

The best way to narrow down the Right Lesson is to remove our feelings from it.
Whether it is supportive, defensive or dismay; these all create a bias.

When emotion is removed, we arrive:

  • Announcements are beneficial
  • Expectations can be tempered with verification
  • Expectations do not constitute another persons promise
  • Alleviate changes with valid restitution (Make it right.)

With emotions subtracted we arrive at an interesting juncture.
Omnimaxus's primary complaint is that an expectation was set, by a beneficial announcement.
His next point was that prior to that announcement; the ZorinGroup should have verified the viability of the kernel (Again, that is supplied by Canonical). This is valid and as a right lesson, perfectly doable and learnable moving forward. Not a huge deal.
Lastly, Omnimaxus wanted restitution be made.

I think it is a Fair Point that since Omnimaxus or any other user is capable of and free to install the 6.11 or the 6.12 kernel at will; that it is valid to say this constitutes some restitution.
Which means each member pointing this out is making a fair and valid point.

Omnimaxus argues that the ZorinGroup should have adhered to the original proposal and this, too, is equally valid, even if different from others expectations.

Avoiding extremes in order to stay balanced and eliminating biases in order to stay objective, I think we can learn the right lessons. That announcements remain beneficial. That Announcements may need care prior to release. That Users / Members / Readers set realistic expectations upon announcements.
That realistic and reasonable restitution should follow a mistake.

From that; I do not see Omnimaxus or ZorinGroup as the villain, in this. Just human beings making human mistakes and having strong feelings about it.

6 Likes

Yes, it was tested for Ubuntu 24, not 22. They announced it because of the Expectation that it would come with an Ubuntu Update. But that Update didn't came.

Yes, this happens with the Kernels that Canonical spreads in the Systems. But when Zorin would put in a Kernel by themself, they would be responsible for it. And that means additional Work beneath their other Stuff.

And I can understand the Disappointment. But a Plan doesn't work always. The Background of this was (A Quote from Artyom):

Within Ubuntu's historical schedule of point releases for LTS versions was typically a .6 and .7 version. However, we got confirmation from Canonical closer to the expected release of Ubuntu 22.04.6 that this launch won't be happening (at least for now) and that the kernel won't be upgraded to a major new version in this release series.

I don't see them as Villains, too.

Sure. You can install a newer Kernel if wanted or needed or an older Kernel if wanted or needed.

See, they already do this.
Zorin OS 17 is based on Ubuntu 22.04, yet is using the higher kernel - They even advertise it as having the same kernel as Ubuntu 24.04.
This is already something that they do.

1 Like

Zorin 17 is based on Ubuntu 22.04. And this Wording is a Problem again ... The Thing is: the 6.8 Kernel is in Ubuntu 22.04, too. That is the Reason why we have the Kernel here. Not Zorin put it in Zorin 17, Ubuntu putted it in Ubuntu 22. And so it came over the Ubuntu Repo's to us.

For the Future, I hope, they don't use Phrases like this anymore. Is this still online? If yes, they should change it.

Typo.. fixed it.

Yes. That is what I have been saying.
They are not maintaining the kernel: Canonical is.

1 Like

Yes, exactly. And I wanted to say: When Zorin would put a Kernel in their System, they would have to Care about to bring the Updates for the Kernels. They wouldn't develop/program the Updates, yes. But they would be responsible to bring the Updates in the System. I mean, when they would bring the 6.12 LTS Kernel, they would have to bring the Updates for the Kernel from kernel.org and push it in the OS. And before they would do it, it would be good to test it first. So, they would have to do that too.

And because they use the Ubuntu Kernel, this all makes Canonical. And they can use the free Capacities for other Things.

Zorin OS has already been using the same kernel as Ubuntu 24.04. It is not required that the same kernel be in the 22.04 Ubuntu: many of the kernels Zorin OS has used in the past were not. Just because 6.8 was, does not mean all were.
They ported the 24.04 kernel. They did not need to patch from the Linux Kernel team.
They did not need to manage the updates.
Do you see?

You are implying an extra or additional workload would be activated - that is not accurate and it is not the case.

Excellent post.

The 6.8 Kernel was first in Ubuntu 24.04, came then to Ubuntu 22.04 and landed so in Zorin.

Yes, because it came from Ubuntu.

Do you have instructions that you followed in order to get up to 6.12? I tried downloading and installing the .deb's for the Ubuntu 6.11 kernel but it didn't work. I'm sure I'm missing a step or two.

1 Like

I updated the guide:

3 Likes

Welcome to the Forum!

When You have downloaded the Kernel Files and want to install then, here is a good Description for this manual Way:

Offnen Sie das Terminal und tippen Sie:

sudo nano /etc/apt/sources.list.d/brave-browser-release.list

In dem sich öffnenden Fenster ergĂ€nzen Sie den arch=amd64 Wert in den eckigen Klammern. Dann drĂŒcken Sie strg+o um die Änderung zu speichern, Enter um zu bestĂ€tigen und strg+x um das Fenster zu schließen. zurĂŒck in der normalen TerminalĂŒbersicht gegen Sie sudo apt update ein.

Open the terminal and type:

sudo nano /etc/apt/sources.list.d/brave-browser-release.list

In the window that opens, add the arch=amd64 value in the square brackets. Then press ctrl+o to save the change, enter to confirm and ctrl+x to close the window. Back in the normal terminal overview, enter sudo apt update.

Soweit mir bekannt ist, bietet Brave keine 32bit UnterstĂŒtzung mehr an. Aber ja, die Fehlermeldung an sich ist kein kritisches Problem. Und mit der ErgĂ€nzung wird das festgelegt und entfĂ€llt.