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!

Pine64 choosed to ship pinephone with Plasma Mobile on Manjaro ARM base from this point on.
Q1 are you surprised?
Q2 What do you think is the motivation behind this decision?
Q3 Is manjaro/plasma seen as a more robust/mature project or as a more enjoyable experience or was only a problem of (missing) comunication about advancement in the development of ut for pinephone ?
I know we are very friend and bound togheder with the manjaro team ( I too LOVE their os) but a friendly competition could also be healthy...so maybe... Q4 are you thinking a B plan/strategy to compensate/answer to this situation?

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.

From 2005 the Free Software Foundation (FSF) launched the High Priority Projects (HPP) initiative to draws attention (and attract funders and developers) to a relatively small number of projects of great strategic importance to the goal of freedom for all computer users.
This year one of the HHP point is dedicated to the Free phone operating system.
Actually the only project sponsored is Replicant a fully free Android distribution.
But why our loved UT is not listed?
Onestly our operative system, especially on free hardware like pinephones, could adhere very well to the characteristics considered by FSF:

• Systematic. Something that has the potential to improve lots of free software programs, development, communities, advocacy -- making use of free software and participation in development and advocacy more compelling for many more people.
• Universal. Something that nearly every computer user needs, but for which there is no competitive free software in the category.
• Cascading. Something that will enable a large number of users to replace not only comparable proprietary software, but also break a logjam that makes it hard for users to adopt unrelated free software.
• Frontier. Enables users to be free at ever lower layers of software and down to hardware. Few users may be able to do this soon, but such frontier development ensures that the bar for eventual freedom for all users is not set too low.

In my opinion we should consider proposing UT /Ubports as a project.

It is useless to remember that giving the project greater visibility at the FSF means directly accessing a multitude of developers engaged in the free world from years and with knowledge and experience ranging from app development to kernel development

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 there is increasing interest in the use of Rust programming language, mainly due to its ability to enforcing memory safety statically. is there interest in integrating this language into UT? what do you think would be the components that would benefit most from being written in Rust language?

ALSO: thanks to my collaboration in OpenStreetMap I'm earning some Chrons from the NEO Economy (equivalent to 0.6€ per hour editing in OSM...I can also reach 6h/week)... is there a way to donate them to the ubports foundation?

How is the work on the Ubuntu Touch Flatpak Runtime going on?
What help is needed?
In the description you said some apps already work fine. what are these apps?

Make the UT apps compatible/usable in other distro is a way to make the development of ut app more appealing to the developers (wider userbase).... is this a project that will have priority any time soon?

PS:since unfortunately I missed the 100th Q&A because I was at my grandmother's funeral, I wish you all happy 100th Q&A now!!

you did not answered my question in the last Q&A. so I re-post them hoping this would not be considered spam

Q1: Canonical recently announced that Flutter will be the default choice for future Ubuntu apps.
Could this choice advantage UT?
what obstacles should be addressed before having a working and integrated flutter framework support in UT?

and now I add these personal questions:
Q2: what was your first programming language you programmed with? currently what is your favorite programming language (even among those not supported by UT)?

recently was announced by Canonical that Flutter will be the default choice for future Ubuntu apps.
Could this choice be an advantage for UT?
if possible, what obstacles should be addressed before having a working and integrated flutter framework support in UT?

Pine64 choosed to ship pinephone with Plasma Mobile on Manjaro ARM base from this point on.
Q1 are you surprised?
Q2 What do you think is the motivation behind this decision?
Q3 Is manjaro/plasma seen as a more robust/mature project or as a more enjoyable experience or was only a problem of (missing) comunication about advancement in the development of ut for pinephone ?
I know we are very friend and bound togheder with the manjaro team ( I too LOVE their os) but a friendly competition could also be healthy...so maybe... Q4 are you thinking a B plan/strategy to compensate/answer to this situation?

@kaizen Amazig work! goood job! I really like it

Can I suggest something from a non-technical POV?
At the top of the sketch you have inserted a truly explanatory schematization (we need to add the app layer). I suggest to keep the same order for the component listed in the first "about the project" section.
Also in the second "about the project" you have used new therms and this could be confusing for someone like me:

• where is the lomiri layer?
• what is this new midleware? is it the halium + core layer?

A better way to keep all more intuitive as possible (but i don't know if it is possible) is to make all the information hidden unless we touch on the desired section: if you touch the "lomiri" layer on the top scheme it opens in the bottom the "Lomiri project" of the first "about the project"
If you touch the "halium" layer on the top scheme it opens in the bottom the "halium project" of the first "about the project" with also the explanation you putted in the second "about the project" section
and so on...
also all element in the second "about the project" should be clickable (not the software ) with direct link to the doc or their github/lab page.

my2cents.

Aury

@alan_g
Oh! so I totally misunderstood that command...reading the documentation seemed to me git pull already encompass a git fetch and a git merge. also I tried the git pull after the make command and that confirmed the local branch was up-to-date. ok, i will try again after the fetch. thank you.

@jonius i tried again after the git pull but obtain the same error

during the QtMir build with make -j 6 all test I also had the fatal error described by @jonius :

[ 87%] Building CXX object tests/mirserver/ScreensModel/CMakeFiles/ScreensModelTest.dir/screensmodel_test.cpp.o
In file included from /home/aurelio/qtmir/src/modules/Unity/Application/mirsurface.h:35:0,
                 from /home/aurelio/qtmir/tests/modules/SurfaceManager/surface_manager_test.cpp:22:
/home/aurelio/qtmir/src/modules/Unity/Application/mirbuffersgtexture.h:20:30: fatal error: miroil/mirbuffer.h: Not existing file or directory 
compilation terminated.
tests/modules/SurfaceManager/CMakeFiles/surfacemanager_test.dir/build.make:62:  instruction set  for the target "tests/modules/SurfaceManager/CMakeFiles/surfacemanager_test.dir/surface_manager_test.cpp.o" failed
make[2]: *** [tests/modules/SurfaceManager/CMakeFiles/surfacemanager_test.dir/surface_manager_test.cpp.o] Error 1
CMakeFiles/Makefile2:2146:  instruction set  for the target "tests/modules/SurfaceManager/CMakeFiles/surfacemanager_test.dir/all" failed
make[1]: *** [tests/modules/SurfaceManager/CMakeFiles/surfacemanager_test.dir/all] Error 2
make[1]: *** waiting incomplete process....

and after that

[ 95%] Built target applicationmanager_test
Makefile:138: instruction set  for the target  "all" failed
make: *** [all] Error 2

@flohack thank you! Now it is more clearer.
Now my only doubt is what is the scheme in an "open hardware" device like pinephone or librem5 and what closed source parts still have to be integrated in UT (preventing UT to be fully FSF compliant.)

PS: I don't find that very informative scheme in our doc...I think that could be usefull to understand what UT is and what is/must be touched by halium and the port process. why that is not in our documentation?