Where does Ubuntu Touch come from? And why clarify it?
-
@arubislander I think you make good points.
But I would not call the original post unhelpful.
After I read that original post, I realized that an image could make this much clearer to all.
I tried asking Google to create an image (a wall of bricks) representing major components of Ubuntu Touch.
I asked that it show the parts created by UT developers in a different color from the rest.The response was 3 different style groups of prompts for some listed AI systems, which could generate an image.
I have never tried to give prompts to these type AI systems, so maybe someone here could do that, and post image results.
after reading arubislander's post, I think it would be good to show that AI 'brick wall' so that all UT components that come from other sources unmodified are shaded green.
Then anything that UT developers have to modify, or create from scratch, is shown in yellow or red, or something, to show the degree of effort and or the 'criticality' of the effort.
In other words, the parts, without which, there would be NO UT on portable devices, would be in RED. (and maybe the unmodified stuff could be light yellow, instead of green, so the RED would really contrast).ALSO, it might be good for the work of core developers to be a different, deeper shade than device porters.
It just occurred to me that an image of a tree would probably make more sense than wall or pyramid of bricks.
Anyone know how to create this, or have a better idea for a graphical representation ?
-
@oldbutndy said in Where does Ubuntu Touch come from? And why clarify it?:
I have never tried to give prompts to these type AI systems, so maybe someone here could do that, and post image results.
Personally I'd much rather someone create an image themselves, using their own brain and skils.
-
@arubislander imho, what is unhelpful is obscurity not clarity.
Heard again today at restaurant: "Windows is produced by a very large company... Linux is produced by independents; they do what they can."With the current communication about Ubuntu Touch (which doesn't make explicit the extent of the resources involved in building it), the newcomer may believe that it's something cooked up by a dozen or so guys and therefore has no chance of getting anywhere near the competitors.
It would also be good for UT users to know that they are using a complex and valuable system.
Properly informed, donors could be more numerous or more generous.A more realistic presentation of Ubuntu Touch and its scope could also help to attract more developers who would be proud to be involved in building a cathedral rather than a shack.
Donate anonymously 1€/$ by year to UBports, all Ubuntu Touch users can do it ! Demonstration:
https://forums.ubports.com/topic/1262/donate-anonymously-1-by-year-to-ubports-all-ubuntu-touch-users-can-do-it-demonstration/ -
It is my understanding that:
-
the development of the graphical environment, Mir, that sits between the shell (Lomiri) and the operating system, is still led by professionals developers from Canonical (I think Canonical are using it for IOT)
-
a big chunk of packages are coming unmodified from the corresponding Ubuntu distro, so callling it 'noble' for example is not an abuse of words.
This said, what's left is still a big effort for few devs, although I think that several are funding their Linux efforts (including UT) with a company serving mostly schools with a special distro based on Lomiri - even if schools are not especially the kind of customers paying a lot for their IT.
-
-
@Moem said
Personally I'd much rather someone create an image themselves, using their own brain and skils.
Yes, if I had the knowledge, time, and skills.
The original post listed a large number of contributors for the base of the whole UT system.
I really had no idea it was so many, before seeing the list !
Add to that the parts done by UT Mobile core developers - THEY know all those parts, but who besides them ?
Then add the parts modified by the porters - I imagine they overlap with parts of the above - as relates to specific device hardware.So, IF I had that giant list of details (hundreds, thousands ?), I could create a large spreadsheet, fill in all the cells with components, then shade them according to some map key.
Probably take hours or days, or more.
I tried Google just to see if it would / could come up with anything, to get an idea.
To see if the concept might be helpful to people. -
For perspective, I just googled 'top 10 core linux facts".
It pointed out things such as top 500 fastest supercomputers in the world are based on Linux kernel, and over 90% of net infrastructure.[When I tell people I want to run 'real' Linux on my phone, and they look at me blankly, I mention things like that, and the fact that android phones run modified linux kernel...]
Then I googled "top 10 Ubuntu Touch Mobile facts".
More good info. The more important - comparing to Android - might be 'No data mining'.The point I am trying to make with my various comments is to build on / combine the original post, and Arubislander, and others comments.
Ubuntu Touch mobile would be a stronger healthier community IF there were a few clear graphical pages that new potential users could see, so they quickly understand just how gigantic the Linux base is, and how Android is a part of that and so is UT.
I think a related point to make is total installs (according to Google): Linux 10 billion (installed devices, all types), iOS 2.5 billion, Windows 1.4 billion monthly users.
Major problem as I see it, comparing PC & laptops to mobile devices is ease of install on almost ANY PC, (even 15 years old), versus somewhat more difficult install on mobile, and EXTREMELY limited number of USABLE mobile devices.
Most everyone who has been here a while knows this, but it takes a while for a newbie to figure it out.
-
@oldbutndy said in Where does Ubuntu Touch come from? And why clarify it?:
EXTREMELY limited number of USABLE mobile devices.
Yes, this is correct, if we try to compare with other Custom ROMs or GNU/Linux OS for smartphones.
That said, Ubuntu Touch still works on around forty different devices, not counting sub-variants of similar models (Pixel 3 + Pixel 3XL, for example).
However, although the number of devices is limited, the aim was to offer devices with a solid port for which virtually all features work stably and efficiently.
A few years ago, there were certainly more compatible devices, but many of them were not ready for regular use with Ubuntu Touch, which could cause a lot of frustration for users, as well as a lot of fruitless work for developers who had to generate system images (OTA updates) for the entire portfolio.
From my point of view, given our very limited resources, ‘less but better’ seems clearly the best strategy to adopt.
-
@libremax said in Where does Ubuntu Touch come from? And why clarify it?:
With the current communication about Ubuntu Touch (which doesn't make explicit the extent of the resources involved in building it), the newcomer may believe that it's something cooked up by a dozen or so guys and therefore has no chance of getting anywhere near the competitors.
The reason I use the word 'unhelpful' is because mentioning all the upstream components and the development that goes into those, does not affect in the least the viability of this project in particular. All these upstream components will continue to be produced with or without UT, because they are not produced specifically for UT. They are widely used in other Linux distro's.
UT is based on Ubuntu, so it is heavily dependent on software libraries that are packaged by Canonical and the Ubuntu Community. Yet Canonical no longer develops UT. So all the bits that make UT its own thing are now maintained, developed and updated by the UBports community.
Let us compare the situation to brand X car factory. They are dependent on suppliers and manufacturers for many of the parts for their car, so they source those from well established suppliers that are also used by every other car manufacturing company. There will be some custom parts that are produced by the brand X car factory themselves. If brand X is a small player in the automotive industry, then their supply chain is of course very important, but not the weakest link in the process of producing their cars.
To boost their appeal to investors they could mention all the effort that goes into the components in their supply chain, as if all these efforts were expended directly to produce brand X. While this would give a more complete picture of the whole manufacturing process, it would also be misleading, in a sense, because all the upstream components would be manufactured anyway, and the effort expended there would in no way make brand X more viable and future proof.
Their own smaller production and assembly capacity would be what investors would need to factor in and keep an eye on, and that is where brand x company would need to improve to be perceived as more viable.
-
Hello,
@arubislander said in Where does Ubuntu Touch come from? And why clarify it?:
Let us compare the situation to brand X car factory. They are dependent on suppliers and manufacturers for many of the parts for their car, so they source those from well established suppliers that are also used by every other car manufacturing company. There will be some custom parts that are produced by the brand X car factory themselves. If brand X is a small player in the automotive industry, then their supply chain is of course very important, but not the weakest link in the process of producing their cars.
To boost their appeal to investors they could mention all the effort that goes into the components in their supply chain, as if all these efforts were expended directly to produce brand X. While this would give a more complete picture of the whole manufacturing process, it would also be misleading, in a sense, because all the upstream components would be manufactured anyway, and the effort expended there would in no way make brand X more viable and future proof.
Their own smaller production and assembly capacity would be what investors would need to factor in and keep an eye on, and that is where brand x company would need to improve to be perceived as more viable.
Exactly, I think that's a good parabolic description. That's why I'm going to stick with it, because I believe that people who want to buy and drive a Ferrari or Bentley are certainly not going to switch to Volkswagen just because someone tells them that Volkswagen employs many more people, including some very good engineers than Ferrari.
That's just how we humans are. Advertising and education can help, but unfortunately they are no guarantee.
Furthermore, the newly acquired “customers” of open source software will not necessarily donate more or at all.
Sorry for not doing it without surreptitious advertising.
Greetings
Mario -
Viability: hmmm, at the moment:
No voice calls (no VoLTE) on Pixel 3A (which WAS a primary supported phone for UT), on UT in USA (which is the third largest phone market by country, or 4th largest by region, after Europe).
[alternative: VOIP - NOT available in openstore for most recent version UT]That is pretty NON-Viable, if you want a phone you can make calls on.
Is that the fault of the UT teams ? I would say NO, it is the fault of the much larger system cancelling 2G, 3G, (USA & Australia , etc, now, and changing worldwide, with plans in place over 10 years ago) and the fact that the drivers for the radio chips and most others are closed source or Android or whatever.
Who would be the ones to fix it ? UT dev teams, if at all.
Or, what about WiFi calling ? Not functional.
Is that the fault of UT devs, or other main stream code (from the larger base) being unavailable ?OR some phone brands / models NOT supporting required radio bands in some countries. NOT Viable.
I think PC's are a better analogy than cars, since we are mostly talking software here, not hardware.
if using cars analogy, could mention how air bag manufacturers caused a huge recall problem for a variety of car manufacturers.
Q: So, where did UT come from ?
A: 1) a gigantic base of hardware and software: major players who recently CANCELLED (in some countries, and in process in others) the fundamental ability of UT to make phone calls, through changes to the larger hardware and software system.
A: 2) a few dedicated, volunteer developers who are doing their best to modify code for specific devices to overcome above obstacles.
