I'm a (frontend) developer and I don't want to modify a lot. That's why I'm using Zorin OS after trying many other distros. Zorin OS is the most beautiful distro I've ever seen and I needed only to change few settings so that it works very well for me 
Other distros let me modify very much but even with modifications they're not getting even close to what Zorin OS looks like.
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.
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.
I was unaware of this, interesting.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In my experience that may not be a bad thing.
Frequent kernel updates can be nerve racking and can cause breakages.
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.
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.
Looks like I am currently on 5.15.0-50-generic #56~20.04.1-Ubuntu
not 5.15...-82 | 83. - is that correct ?
Previous versions:
linux-image-5.13.0-30-generic/focal-updates,focal-security,now 5.13.0-30.33~20.04.1 amd64 [installed,automatic]
linux-image-5.15.0-48-generic/focal-updates,focal-security,now 5.15.0-48.54~20.04.1 amd64 [installed,automatic]
linux-image-5.15.0-50-generic/focal-updates,focal-security,now 5.15.0-50.56~20.04.1 amd64 [installed,automatic]
Latest/newer kernels bring a couple of relevant updates I'd be interested in, better drivers for my GPU and NTFS driver fixes.
Mesa 23.1 Update
Paragon NTFS Driver
My point is that I'm potentially missing a couple of key kernel enhancements but that is probably to be expected coming to the end of Zorin 16. Zorin 17 is about to be released soon.
Will I be in the same place 18 months from now. Infrequent kernel updates means missing out on enhancements. Obviously there needs to be a balance between stability and kernel updates but what if its skewed 'too far' the other way (sacrificing enhancements for stability).
I agree with harvey on this one, as I mentioned also in my previous post.
But for completeness, you may want to try out something like OpenSUSE Tumbleweed which is what's called a "rolling release distribution". This type of distributions will always receive the latest updates as soon as they are available, which means packages and kernel will be as up to date as they can be.
One area where you will see the clear benefits is with drivers, particularly for GPU. If you play games or do work that needs this, then you might want to try it out and see if it's for you.
The downside is that there's a risk that something may break because it's incompatible with another package, system library, etc. This is not as frequent as some people claim it to be but it does happen, and the issues it causes range from small annoyances to broken packages.
Another issue worth mentioning is that there are so many packages receiving new updates so frequently, that routine updates take a very long time. It gets annoying after a while.
Actually... the way Linux users have been acting lately... It would be more accurate to say they want to get a new car every three months. Get a new cell phone every 30 days.
It seems like every year, Linux users cut their expectations of development time in half. And they want it allll for free.
Zorin or Ubuntu is too slow in their release cycle of 1.5 years and 1.8 years but Windows releases on average once every 6 years. Somehow, it's not good enough.
I blame all the Youtube videos and tech blogs that create and exploit the hype around whatever new cool tech is available, just to increase that juicy ad revenue.