As an answer to a my ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything, Deep Thought suggested me to reach 42 stickers:

@prog-amateur I gave you the -1 "like" not because of your question, but because your imply, without knowing its purpose, that it "allows redirections to Canonical servers" coming to suspect a GDPR incompatibility and ending by asking what else (not if else)" is sent as a telemetry from OS/app to whatever company/organization". All after the initial sentence, resuming or reminding the Ubports sentence in the website about the care about freedom of choice and privacy, as it were a lie, and asking "clear answers" assuming the ubports foundation has ever in some way given unclear or ambiguous answers or/to hide the truth behind them or has reason to do so..

so that -1 is for the chosen style and the tone of the question that I personally perceive and didn't like, not for the question. about your question, because it is a good question, this was my answer: https://github.com/ubports/morph-browser/pull/250

ps: I'm not in any way endorsed by or affiliated with ubports and what I say may not be what ubports thinks

IMHO it's fundamental that the icon resemble the original one obviously avoiding any trademark infringing. I think we can use the original "3D-ish" icon as a base and colors (so to keeping similarity with the official one and make it discernable from the Unav one) and apply on it some of the UT official graphic guideline/style so to avoid trademark infringing.
for example something like:

and

they both are in origami style. in the first the geometry and the style of the paper airplane is different from the original/official logo (it'is another paper airplane ;)). the second is more similar in terms of geometry but the teleport effect make it whole new icon.

Hi guys,
as a way to spread UT/UBports I think could be also useful to make more famous our logos/mascot to the world.
One of our main communication channel is based on telegram that is the perfect platform for some of our marketing purpose for various reasons:

• it is used on smartphonens

• it is supported on UT (thank you guys!)

• it is used by people prone to try something different even if it is (still) less used than whatsapp

• it has stickers

I started to make a little collection of yumi images based on this guideline and using telegram guidelines
Our current sticker pack has "only" 13 images so I tried to expand it (actually I've 35) and substitute some of them with new one, :
eg

vs

A more completed pack is more probable being used in our and other telegram channels spreading the world Yumi mascot and UBports logo.

So now I've some questions for the UBports Foundation:

• Could this be useful for you?
• Am I infringing your trademark
  • do I need an official approval?
    • do I need only an official approval for the whole stickers pack or
    • do I need an official approval for each sticker?
• do exist already a sticker project/place where I can contribute?
  thank you!

because this is a more stable configuration than a circle
Jokes aside, when I made this symbol I was thinking of the third generation of Ubuntu DE (after gnome and unity7, our beloved unity8) and

• to the three elements of the project:
  • the foundation,
  • the community,
  • all the mainstream projects,
• and to the three levels of the system:
  • the device,
  • the OS,
  • the applications,
• or
  • the hardware,
  • the software ,
  • the user.

new two stickers are coming:

this is for the next UT code cleaning

and this is for the next features requests

@Flohack I don't have to motivate the people.

I don't think you can look in his eyes and say to him "no"

@UBportsNews I have already contributed here and there but have done only little things. I'm studyng how to develop on UT but I'm only an hobbyist so I'm not a so good investment...
But, I found that there are at least two other italian UT users near me (less than 30km, and they are very active in the Italian UBports telegram group) and I'm already thinking of share with them my rpi4 to help each other in the develop and test process. Also in Mezzago (a town 7km from my home) there is a little but lively linux community that could be interested in the UT and its app development.
Last but not the least I directly know and I'm friend with many guys from informatics engineering (from the university Politecnico di Milano) with which I collaborate in the Openstreetmap project and wikimedia foundation and that could be interested in software development on more exotic platform like UT

what about the canonical plan about "ubuntu personal" (snappy-ubuntu-core+mir+unity8)? is it still a thing?

is there any plan about porting ubuntu touch on lowcost arm boards (eg. like raspberry Pi3) so the developers could test their apps and the system without having to buy a compatible smartphone?

[OT] is there any plan to bring an Ultrafast or Hyperfast Broadband connection to the Marius G.'s home? his lags in the UT Q&A videos are one of the moments that I look forward to

@poVoq
I don't see what is the problem with another "libertine" or "anbox"...our problem with them is the lack of develop in supporting these systems but, if developed, they could result in lightweight systems able to support apps (integrated with the OS) without have to emulate an entire OS.
For what I understand from the Q&A answers, having the same mediahub/content hub on other OSes is exactly what is nearly impossible until great changes in those distros. The other way around is also near impossible due to access and read/write policy restrictions on UT (and this will not change) and the same mediahub/content hub problem.
As said by the UBPTeam in the Q&A the adoption of an "Universal" packaging system like Snap or Flatpak can solve some of the main problems but you will obtain usually only an executable application unable to work because of the different media/content hubs access policy etc.

it is not necessarily to create another compatibility layer on UT, in fact in my opinion it is better a layer on other OSes to allow them to use UT apps; this because the UT apps are already more "confined" (no write access on the system image). Also, at the moment, this option would be the only win-win solution: UT obtains more interest from developers (support a single system to support many others) and the other systems obtain the access to the currently more extended linux app ecosystem for smartphone. MyTwoCents

Hi guys.

This question, which I hope will evolve into a discussion, arose as a result of the latest Q&A. In each of these several users asked if it was possible to run other os linux apps for smartphones on UT and thus avoid fragmentation.
The answer was no on the possibility of avoiding fragmentation, while as regards compatible applications on multiple platforms the main difficulty is not in making an application executable but rather adapting it to the different ways of accessing system resources that each OS has.

My doubt, probably stupid, is: if we are able (theoretically) to run android applications on UT, why shouldn't the same trick also be possible to obtain the compatibility with other distro on smartphone (much more similar to UT than android)?

If it were possible the potential for a greater diffusion of all distros on smartphones (not only UT) would be much wider, it would avoid wasting resources in porting the same application on multiple os or, worse, in reinventing the wheel for each smartphone distro.

• UT is being ported to more and more devices, some of which are opensource and cheap, so one of the main problems we have in the first release/OTA (also under canonical) for the user, finding a compatible device, seem to be largely solved.
  Q1: what do you think are UT's Achilles heels that need further work?

• Other linux Oses for smartphone will have their own software (eg. Purism librem5)with their own "package manager" and store.
  Q2: do you think is possible to avoid fragmentation?

• The app number on our store is still very small (less than 1200 applications, half of them are "only" webapps and we don't know how many of them still work)
  Q3: what do you think is needed and what have you come up with to attract more app developers?
  Q4: is there interest and are there plans to extend the number of programming languages, toolkits supported in UT?

In one of the last Q&A Dalton told us that a lot of resources had to be devoted solely to evaluating commit from the community. I find this great although I guess for Dalton it's not as fun as directly develop himself.
Q1:do you think that was just a particularly intense period of PR in view of the upcoming OTA or is that situation persisting?

the port on open devices has been defined easier than the port on android devices. in fact all the devices have been supported in a relatively short time ... all except the rpi4 ... almost a year has passed since that fateful date ...
Q2: does the UBports team think that Marius should have at least eaten half a sock?
Real Q2: it is clear the reasons that led to giving priority to Pinephones and Volla, and now also the Pinetab is acquiring priority ... but is the priority only due to the release schedule on the market and agreements between UBP and the producers or are there other reasons behind the choice of those devices (ie tech spec, community interest, visibility ecc)?
Q3: Plasma Mobile has recently announced the animated backgroud for their weather app; will we ever have such a feature or does lomiri not allow it?

@Pulsar33 I don't know what to think....

here Marius says that this is a mir problem (January 2020)

here the mir developers say that is a mesa problem (7 august 2020)
and here the mesa developers said they had the problem (2 august 2019) but already corrected that ( 15 august 2019)...for them mesa works correctly on rpi4 (and hardware accelerated)...

Q1: why Sphinx was choosed for our documentation instead of (e.g.) mediawiki? what are its advantages over using a (e.g.) wiki?

@Keneda thank you did not know that.
Yes it's not obvious given also that the space between yumi and the "UBports Forum" is different from the space between the others elements and make look like the mascot and the forum name are the same element/image (and so you click more easily on the element more wide not on the mascot).

@Kaizen no i'm talking only to have the same top menu bar in all ubports subdomain included the forum and the documentation:
Having the same topbar in all the project pages don't seems to me an absurd assumption nor something necessarily to be motivated by an "insistently navigation", but yes, I tend to use the forum with massive checking or Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V from documentation, news (q&a transcription) and sometimes from the git repository...
An easy (or better a standardized) way to navigate between the various page would make using the forum more comfortable for me and probably also for new users that tend to frequently check and explore other website pages while reading in the forum

@Kaizen said in UBports Website rebuilding:

The site has MANY entrance points to the forum on many subjects and conversations.

I'm not talking about the entrance points to the forum but about the entrance point from the forum to the website.

I don't think have to search a conversation in the forum to discover the main website or a particular webpage in the project website is a good approach...and I still think this make look like the forum something isolated from the rest of the project...a sort of a dead end where is easy to enter but difficult to exit while it should let the user easily navigate in any "direction" inside the project and easily reach the desired webpage in the project webpage.

the same should also apply to the documentation page, another dead end section

@Capsia why that "build with JAVA" ? is ubports build with JAVA or is it JAVA compatible?