| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zorin OS article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was delete. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reception section
editIt looks as though several of the criticisms mentioned in the reception section do not actually appear in the cited reviews. One way or another, the section may need to be reworked. Detritus2 (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. The reception section is completely POV and unsupported. --Nick2253 (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Old deletions
editSee Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zorin_OS and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zorin OS (2nd nomination) for old deletion AfD's. Keep in mind that the current revision far exceeds the older one from 2013 in quality and citation level. HarryKernow. Talk. 06:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Info box
editHi,
Was just wondering, is there really any need for the Linux term to be mentioned next to the kernel "monolithic" area? Since its mentioned already in the OS Family section. Could the term Linux be removed from the kernel section in the info box since its not necessary to mention it twice so it will show it similar to the main Ubuntu infobox. Also someone posted an update to the article stating that the "Education" edition is for purchase note that the Education can be downloaded for free on Zorin's website if typing the £0 amount in the custom donation box could this be fixed. 94.5.216.185 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Open Source?
editI'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)