Talk:Zorin OS

Open Source?

I've added a [citation needed] tag to the "Open-source" claim. I just came upon this page and cannot find reliable information on that. Zorin's own website claims to be "Open-source" (but doesn't cite a particular software license). And my attempts to access the source via their own page led down a rabbit hole of external sites, Linux distro repos, and other places, and I never actually found what I was looking for.

If this OS is truly open source, we should have a citation for that and also include the specific FOSS license. If it's not, then we shouldn't be claiming that it is. Mercerenies (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. They're obviously committed to open source, but their site is very unclear about the actual licenses. It looks like their OS is a mix of open and closed source and that their wording is deliberately vague on that: "Zorin OS is built with Open Source software" (emphasis mine) and "It focuses on combining elegant, user-friendly design with Open Source technology" (again emphasis mine). Someone replaced your "citation needed" tag with a link to the ZorinOS site that simply claims that it is open source, without providing the license. I've deleted that and put the tag back in. MichielN (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

GNOME Versions

It would be good to have the GNOME versions within the table for version history. This is an important number to understand compatibility with GNOME Extensions and which features of GNOME should be available.

ZorinOS 17.3 has GNOME 43 (43.9). I don't know if Zorin OS 17 ever just supported GNOME 42 as that is what is available via Ubuntu 22.04. It would be great to know where and how Zorin OS extends support for GNOME. Ciscorucinski (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

What license is it released under?

The info-box says it's "Free Software" with "some proprietary device drivers", but that's not a license, that's a philosophy. ~2025-35659-91 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

version history deletion

Why was the version history deleted without any discussion? Many OS articles have version tables and information. Ciscorucinski (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Excessive version histories without third-party sources showing relevance is WP:UNDUE. - Aoidh (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The lack of version history, and history in general about Zorin OS, would also be a shortcoming I see with this article. Better history is usually present in a Wikipedia article. There are three different versions that Zorin offers, Core, Educational and Pro. They used to offer a Lite version, that is discontinued. It is almost like this article starts out with 16. The fact is if one investigates the versions numbering skipped from Zorin 12 directly to Zorin OS 15. I started with Zorin 15, and 15.3. In my opinion, Zorin OS 17 and 18. (most Modern Linux), are like Microsoft 10 and 11, in not supporting mechanical hard drives well enough, they all are too slow on a computer with a mechanical hard drive,which is a good reason to update to SSD. That is the reason I have gone back to Zorin OS 16 on some of my older computers. One gets more in-depth history on Zorin by using AI.Easeltine (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

What exactly is Zorin OS Pro?

I can't find any information about what the selling point for Zorin OS Pro is, given that it seems like the "premium features" are all just bundling open source software (that is free, not made by these developers), and some minor GUI layout tweaks (e.g. "Windows like, "ChromeOS like", which are really stretching the meaning of "like", given that it is only resizing some context menus and changing positions around). Ybllaw (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't really a forum, but in the interest of being helpful, I'll try to answer your question as best as I can. I briefly used both Zorin OS and Zorin OS Pro last year on a live USB before deciding against installing it for various reasons.

My interpretation of Zorin OS Pro is that it is explicitly positioned as a premium offering with additional features that are not present in the free version. While that is the technical definition of premium or pro software, I get the feeling that the developers wanted to make some profit off of their project, and making the base version of the OS paid was not the way to go about it (as it would likely generate far more negative press than their OS Pro option does).

It is also worth noting that their Pro version apparently offers direct technical support, which could be helpful for those who are new to Linux who might be interested in Zorin OS because it can be configured to look like Windows. The inclusion of pro-level apps (some that are normally free) would also make it easier for Linux newbies to get started with pro-level work versus having to find those apps separately and install them themselves. The Pro option is also much cheaper than the Pro option for Windows (from Microsoft), which probably helps.

I can certainly see the appeal of it, but even though the direct support seems pretty helpful, I don't personally agree with making an OS based on Linux paid software. I feel like it goes against the nature of Linux itself, which was intended to be a free and open source operating system.

I hope this helps. GSK (talk • edits) 15:18, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

It was not meant as a request for opinion sharing. The article contains some claims that seem to be false. Such as the pro version containing apps for photo and video editing that the free version doesn't. Where the apps this is referring to are free software. So saying "includes" is stretching creative license for ambiguous language to the point of being misleading. As it is phrased as that you pay for it. Ybllaw (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

You asked what the selling point for Zorin OS Pro was, I gave you an answer based on the way you phrased the question. I apologize if it seemed like I was sharing an opinion. I came to the conclusions I did after doing research on the Pro offering, viewing their own website about it, and my brief use of the Pro version. GSK 02:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Right. My original topic was not clear enough about how my question related directly to the article. Ybllaw (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2026 (UTC)