Ah, Windows XP and Windows 7... good times 
. I guess I should both blame and thank the clumsy C-suits at Microsoft who ruined their own product and pushed me towards Linux.
2 Likes
I also love the way Zorin OS looks, it's really quite beautiful. I used Deepin for a while, but Zorin feels much less clunky, and I'm glad I switched. One thing I do miss, however, is the fact that Deepin was Debian based as opposed to Ubuntu.
This is slightly misleading. Both are Debian based. Ubuntu's is highly modified and uses systemd, but is still based on the Debian version of Linux.
When building a Debian system, there are many options for system components.
Otherwise, Ubuntu would be a BSD variant or other Linux based variant (fedora, arch).
It would cut out the middle man if Zorin was built directly on Debian, but there is so much more development that would need to go into it that we would be lucky to see new versions every 5 to 7 years. It would be a nightmare for two people to create, build and maintain.
I was unaware of this, interesting.
The kernel is part of Linux. It and a few other pieces fit into the gnu system, which uses the kernel to access hardware. On top of that you have the middle men software that speaks to these life level systems and processes, as well as the system services and desktop.
This is where the different bases come from. Some are proprietary. Like Red Hat, others are based more on Unix systems (BSD) and there is Debian which is a compilation of simple processes for efficiency and speed.
Ubuntu is based on it, but highly modified (systemd is not that fast nor efficient).
It gets really technical really quick, but a lot of well liked distros are Debian based (Ubuntu,
Zorin, pop, mint, mx?... there's a list).
Can you elaborate on this? I'm not an expert. So I might miss something here. But isn't Debian a fully functional operating system? Why would it take so much longer to develop, if Zorin OS was based on Debian directly instead of Ubuntu? Yes, they would have to go with the Debian repositories. But the main work that I see as a user are the modifications to the desktop which are either Gnome or XFCE issues, and some performance and stability improvements. How would switching from Ubuntu to Debian change that so much?
I'm not arguing here, I genuinely lack the knowledge and don't understand.
Ubuntu has made it simpler by providing connector functions, essentially an API, for others to use it and build upon it. Debian is not so designed.
Without getting into the underlying code and framework, what is included, what can be changed and what should be changed, this is the simplest I can make it.
Debian was designed for simplicity and efficiency. Anyone that built upon that needs to "reframe" the interactions and troubleshoot any issues. Canonical had a team do this. Zorin's can, but it will take much much longer with only two people.
Why? If they had to go from Debian directly, they may not choose to use systemd, so would need another framework to connect the system processes to the kernel... one they may have to build to ensure stability and efficiency that they require of their work.
Of course, once it is initially created, maintaining and upgrading it would be less problematic, especially since they would know it intimately. Creating it could take years though.
Thanks. I didn't know there was that much more behind it. Especially since there are some Debian based distros out there from smaller teams, such as MX linux or Mint Debian edition. They're both Debian made user friendly. Which is I thought Zorin would do. I guess I was just hoping Zorin OS could switch to Debian eventually, since I'd like that a lot more than Ubuntu.
This is a pretty popular idea.
Being based on Ubuntu comes with some pretty nice advantages, though. And Zorin OS is not Ubuntu.
If you are referring to smaller teams than ZorinOS, I doubt it since there are only 2 developers dedicated to the project full time. I honestly don't know how MXLinux or Mint work in terms of development resources allocated but I've always been under the impressions those were relatively large projects.
I would also prefer using Debian but only if it makes sense. At the moment, I don't see thinks it's a good time to put in the time and effort into this if it's not going to make a significant impact.
I know of only one.
Elive OS is based on Debian and it is a One Person job.
1 Like
Come to think of it, I've heard of many distributions that start small like that but I'm not sure which ones continue to be actively maintained. I think maybe Garuda and Gecko Linux, that I can think of right now.
As well as Zorin
2 Likes
I love Zorin and have been using it since version 16 was first available.
The only concern could be because its based on a 'older' ubuntu version, does that mean that it doesn't receive kernel updates as often ? For example the current kernel is 5.15
I understand that Zorin 17 will be based on Ubuntu 22.04. In between major Zorin releases do we get regular kernel updates ?
Kernel updates bring new and enhanced functionality ? Such as updates to NTFS driver and GPU drivers (I have rx6700 GPU and would appreciate driver updates).
Apart from the regular kernel updates issue, its a very good distro and amazing that its developed by 2 people ! I will definitely be buying Zorin 17 Premium.
Just that niggling feeling that kernel updates are not that regular, am I wrong ?
Forgot the most obvious one 
Ubuntu releases long-term support (LTS) versions every two years. ZorinOS 16 is based on Ubuntu 20.04 which means that it will continue to receive updates regularly in the form of bug fixes, minor versions updates of packages, security updates, etc. Similarly, the Linux kernel also has long-term support versions, which ZorinOS uses.
So there's really no cause for concern about not using the latest version of Ubuntu so long you are within the expected maintenance period of the operating system and kernel. Unless, for whatever reason, you need some features that don't exist in the current versions of the kernel.
2 Likes
In my experience that may not be a bad thing.
Frequent kernel updates can be nerve racking and can cause breakages.
1 Like
With standardized hardware, frequent kernel updates should be unnecessary. In fact, it is not difficult to run a Linux OS on a desktop PC, but unfortunately not on a laptop.
Yes. If you take a look at your system, you will see that the kernel is, or should be, right around 5.15...-82 | 83.
You can check by uname -a in the terminal.
You can see what version it came from, if you haven't used apt autoremove by asking apt what's installed:
apt list --installed | grep linux-image-*
This will show you the images installed, going back to the original that came with Zorin 16 at release.
Each major release has kernel upgrades that leave it at or above the kernel version of the next Ubuntu base version.
2 Likes
Ubuntu you never know what happens tomorrow.
Debian is stable. I never reading some bad words about debian.
Mint in december will going to LMDE6.
I saw many new linux distributions going with Debian 12 bookworm.