I think, first ota-13, you need to make it as stable as possible, and only then add new functions, so that it would not be like with a camera on Nexus 5. stability, stability, and again stability!
Do you somehow think people working on UT do not care about stability? Do you even have an accurate definition of what you mean by stability here? Are you doing anything to contribute to making things more stable where you think they're not, other than to make unhelpful posts on here demanding things from the few developers who are working on UT?
AppLee last edited by
No need to be rude back. We're still a friendly community.
You know you can scare people off sometimes
Keneda last edited by
It may also because he looks very angry on his avatar ^^
Fla last edited by
@dobey that being said, I tend to agree with @nexus5 : I own a Fairphone 2 and there are awful bugs in both 5.1 and 7.1 ports. I reported many of them on github for years, and none were fixed. It is hard for a team to find the right balance between stability and new features, but I would say for something as critical as a phone, focus a bit more on stability would be very welcomed. That's a topic I brought several time during the Q&A in the last months and the answer was each time "we need to focus on OTA-XX first and then..." but my issues still are open.
@Fla I don't know what issues you're talking about, but even Android has bugs. Maybe your specific issue seems critical to you, but to claim it is critical for everyone is probably not right. Different phones also have different issues, because we do not control the hardware. Fairphone 2 is even more special in this case due to its modular nature, so many times the issue is often just "module came a bit loose and did not have secure connection."
Maybe your issue is somewhat important to many people. I don't know. But acting like we don't care about stability or have no concern for it, because your own pet issues aren't the focus, is just silly. We have always cared about stability. But it's not as simple as using a vague notion as some over-arching point, because "stability" cannot be directly worked on. If you're the only one experiencing a specific issue, it's going to be really difficult for anyone else to solve it when they can't reproduce it or don't have that hardware. There are also a lot of other big things that need to happen for the general vague idea of stability to be perceived better, and yes, we are working on them. But you only see the features, because those are what show up in YouTube videos, blog posts, etc…
Free Software doesn't come for free. The best way to get something fixed that only you are seeing, is to dig in and find the cause. Remember, Ubuntu Touch is mostly a community project, and contributors from the community will tend to only work on the things that interest or bother them directly. We don't have a team of a thousand people paid full time to build Ubuntu Touch, like Google and Apple do for their phone operating systems, unfortunately.
Remember, Ubuntu Touch is mostly a community project, and contributors from the community will tend to only work on the things that interest or bother them directly.
That may well be the pinnacle and the reason for people not being satisfied. I'd say it's about trusting a UT ported device to become a good daily driver, regardless of any bugs reported on Android devices.
Many devices have been ported already and we're all grateful for that. Many of them have issues still one would not expect and taking long to be fixed or maybe not worked on because something more interesting has come along.
People having issues on a ported device at the same time seeing a bunch of potential new ported device appear, taking time and voluntary resources and 'moving on' to the next challenge, whilst current issues have not been fixed/ironed out. That does not affect the individual user, many users with that particular device having the same issue (thinking Fairphone 2, Oneplus 3) while not raising their voices will think again before installing UT on their next device, let alone spread the word.
Lakotaubp last edited by
@3T_Ed Please remember that it is not the same people starting one port getting bored as such and moving on to the next device. If you look at the new devices in the ported section the initial porters in most cases are different people starting their own ports on devices. These devices seem to all reach a good basic point of use then start bumping into issues that are not easy to solve as the fix is different for each device.
This normally includes the camera for example which has been a thorn in the side for ages. This gets to the heart of what @dobey was saying. The core devs are mainly working on the core issues at the heart of UT while others continue to work on issues with their own ports. When these issues match they can be fixed quickly and merged if they are device specific then that's where the time comes in and progress seems slow. Yes it's frustrating and slow but things move forward and improve and all from a mainly though not exclusively volunteer community, so lets not be to hard on each other and appreciate what has been done so far.
Thank you very much for pointing that out. I did not mean to be hard on anyone, if it was taken that way I sincerely apologize.
I'm very happy with UBports/UT and above all the voluntary work that has been done, really really appreciated. For me (coming from MS devices) and undoubtedly many others who don't want to go the Apple or Android route, this community is a great place to be. It's the lack of my skills that may contribute to any annoyance when certain/one feature does not work. Got to be patient.
Fla last edited by Fla
@dobey I knew when saying that I have issues that you would answer something like this if I don't post a list ^^
So there you go:
- #49 opened on 28 May 2017 by NeoTheThird
- #42 opened on 28 May 2017 by NeoTheThird
- #30 opened on 28 May 2017 by NeoTheThird (this one is solved in the Halium 7 port)
Those are just 3 of many issues, which concern everyone running a FP2 and even sometime the OPO.
Don't get me wrong, I know very well how an open-source project works, I know people are working on what they want, and I've been at your situation with people complaining instead of contributing, being a core maintainer of the diaspora* social network for years. And I try to contribute to UT, reporting issue, testing RC or even reproducing bugs in stable and devel, following closely what's going on with the github project board and Telegram. You people are doing an amazing job, be thanked x1000 for that.
That being said, I stand on what I said above: It is hard for a team to find the right balance between stability and new features, but I would say for something as critical as a phone, focus a bit more on stability would be very welcomed.
Again, that's my opinion, that does not mean that you have to agree, nor that all contributors aren't doing a lot of very appreciated work. But issues open for 3 years without activity on a device said to be one of the best supported doesn't send a good signal for those coming from the corporation world, seeking trust in a small foundation.
How can you make a phone stable when you have a hybrid Android-Ubuntu?! You guys mentioned camera on Nexus 5. Well, what if the bugs are comming from the fact that the camera manufacturer doesn't care that you want it to work on UT? Who's gonna help you with drivers, communication protocols, etc.. etc.?! Guys, if you choose UT, than you walk on uncharted territory. Swimm or die. Or go back to Android. Who from you thinks that any from these developers like a buggy camera?
@Fla None of those reports have been without activity as you claim. But they aren't trivial issues, and yes, they may not be fixed yet. Work to get it updated to Halium 7.1 is a lot of activity, and as you noted, helps with one of the issues.
My point is simply talking about it as if the focus is on features instead of stability is pointless, because you're talking about some vague notion that you perceive, rather than reality.
As another example, the Halium 7.1 build for Nexus 5 also fixes several issues (though there are some other new ones). And with the Qt 5.12 upgrade I am working on (note that Qt 5.9 is no longer supported by upstream), it is more strict about some things, and provides many more performance stability improvements.
It's not something that is going to change overnight, and yes certain devices are more problematic than others, but it's not like people aren't working on the issues simply because you don't see them being discussed on the Q&A (where, btw, questions about specific bugs are meant to be avoided) or such. Every stable OTA comes with stability improvements, though it may not be the "stability" you are specifically wanting at the moment.
@C0n57an71n I don't think that's the kind of replies we want in our community. It's condescending and rude, and doesn't help. We can be kind and direct without such dramatizations. Thanks.
@dobey Sorry, but I'm seeing this type of questions (complaints) over and over again and they are presented like someone outhere doesnt want the things to move forward. I guess Q & A are useless, or nobody listens to them. And I understand if this question is comming from a newcoming member (although the tone is sometimes totaly criticising and unappropriate), but why from the insiders side? You cannot force people to do what YOU want, and for free. Period.
Fla last edited by
@C0n57an71n If that was directed to me, note that I am not trying to force anyone, I was only making a suggestion about more focus on solving existing issues. Funny fact, to help with OTA13 release I switched from devel to RC which is almost stable now, and morph crashed when trying to write that message.
Also, I am not the kind of "for free“ people, you can read in one of the github issues above that I offered fifty bucks for the developer who would solve it.
And finally, please note that I am not the person who open that topic about stability. I brought it once in the Q&A, I know it isn't useful and even harassing for the devs to bring back that topic without anything new to say.
However by keeping many bugs open even in UT stable, it isn't fair to answer to new users saying that UT is not stable that it is. Such topic will continue to be created every week or so by new users, and the answer from the community (me included) has to be honest. When someone choose to go the hard way by trying something different than the easy Android / iOS route, then he/she deserves a better answer than "stop complaining and start contribute“. We don't even known if he knows what is free software and contribution.
AppLee last edited by AppLee
I don't think @C0n57an71n was pointing fingers at anyone in particular.
I agree with @Fla, about focusing on stability over new features.
And I believe that's what is done.
That's why I see work on upgrading QtWebEngine for a better Morph in the incoming OTA13 and no super gadget feature to sort the icons in the app drawer.
I think we're on the same page, but as @Fla points out there are still issues. And some of them can be really annoying for the end users. But as @dobey mentioned there are some bugs more tricky than others and some are hardware/device related which is harder to fix...
@C0n57an71n is right, people coming here with a problem shouldn't act like angry customer shouting about how their coffee is either too hot or not enough. That is unfair.
We're a community and as such we contribute : opening issues, finding how to reproduce it, testing, coding, translating, ...
for the greater good.
Now maybe we have to find a way to show what effort are made to improve everyone's experience with UT.
The foundation has a major role to play, but the community has IMO an even bigger role because a handful of paid developers will never make UT great alone.
And like sang a great philosopher:
If you wanna make the world a better place,
take a look at yourself and then make the change.
@MichaelJackson in Man in the mirror
This is a great thread, one of the kind why I value and support this community.
I think part of the problem is the way how UbPorts communicates the "big picture" strategy and the other part is the "mindset" of many new UT users.
For someone devolping UT this path forward is reasonably clear, even if it means taking backroads and dealing with unexpected obstacles. For many new users coming from Android or iOS, UT may be conceived as a mediocre alternative for the seemingly "all inclusive and free" (please note the hyphens!) solution to their problems. These users may be better off to continue using android or iOS to meet their needs and I think it is fair to communicate this directly (e.g by closing such threads).
Then, there is the group of enthusiastic users who are willing to change their mindset and leave the "dark side" without having any clue of software development on smart phones etc. (I am one of them) and may only be able to contribute to the project financially but not in terms of skills or time. For these users a less defensive, off-putting attitude to these questions may be more encourraging. I am using UT as my daily driver on FP2 and N5 and I am typing these lines on my new PineTab, which I received yesterday. I think it is a wonderful piece of community built hard- and software and already meets 75% of my personal use case specifications (despite e.g. a known copy past bug in the file manager), which is more than I expected. I received an OTA to version 5 today but I have no clue which issues were supposed to be fixed (relative to version 4) so that I could specifically test them (same for the pine phone). I think here we are missing an opportunity to get potentially interested enthusiastic but unskilled new users involved.
I understand the decision to not use the milestones on github for OTA releases to take of perceived pressure of the dev team but some "relative" timeline or priority list, understandable for non-dev users, may be helpful to frame expectations of this (apprently growing) part of the user community and avoid many posts on this topic in the forum.
@nogoogle I agree that it would be nice to have a way to check what has been fixed in the latest UT release. Apps already announce it with the update in the update tool. I am not sure why it's not included, perhaps there is a good reason. It could be that the details would only be readable by someone who is involved in the creation of UT? If it also can be interpreted by the layman, such as myself, it would help if the details were published, so users can check if it works.
Lakotaubp last edited by
@Alter I think that in most cases it is the amount of changes that would need documenting. Leave it with me and I will check on your offer for which Thanks.
@Lakotaubp Thanks for looking into the possibility of publishing the details!