Looks like the Mir team is making progress with the logind tweak.

Whether or not UBports wants to register a name as a trademark (I think it should), UBports should approach name selection with an eye toward trademark law. That is, among other criteria, distinctiveness and potential likelihood of confusion must be considered.

Unity

As @alan_g points out above:

There's also continuing confusion with Unity.

Whether or not “Unity” as used by UBports/Canonical creates a likelihood of confusion (within the legal meaning) with “Unity” as used by Unity Technologies, I won't speculate. But keep in mind that, regardless of what anyone in this forum thinks, Unity Technologies may have other thoughts. And depending on the arguments presented, a court (and/or trademark registration authorities, such as the EUIPO, USPTO, etc.) may side with Unity Technologies.

Touch

From a purely marketing (not legal) perspective, given that UBports is working toward convergence, why not refer to mobile and desktop using the same name?

If UBports hasn’t already done so, now would be a good time to contact appropriate legal counsel to discuss whether “Touch” is likely registrable and non-infringing in target markets.

Although it would be fun for the community to discuss possible new names in public, keep in mind that cyber squatters (and trademark squatters) are listening. So, although antithetical to common practice in the open source community, public discussion of potential new names is generally a bad idea.

DISCLAIMER: No portion of this post constitutes, or should be construed to constitute, legal advice. Rather, I suggest that UBports and/or Canonical should consult with a qualified trademark attorney to seek advice regarding these matters.

@alan_g said in 18.04 desktop - getting it working again:

@derwalter there is still work in progress. The logind work hasn't landed in Mir yet, so it isn't integrated in Unity8.

Looks like this commit will provide logind support in Mir 0.32. True?

@mariogrip wrote elsewhere:

Xenial (phone) is still in the scope, I was expecting to be done with all the backlog bugs and most of the ota-4, but i was also expecting to have the first xenial rc landed, but due to my issues I have not been able to complete this.

Unity8 is still in the scope, but has a lower priority then xenial (phone). Unity8 is somewhat broken on bionic due to Ubuntu (upstream) have removed the mir patch from mesa, this means none of the apps will work. We have to change this to using the wayland protocol for all the apps. But on top of this mir has bumped the abi/api version for miral so we have do some some work to get things building again. We will hopefully get this working quickly!

I imagine that discussing the above is already on the agenda for Q&A 26. But if not, let me respectfully suggest discussing it.

I'll add that I fully agree with the order of priorities outlined above, namely Xenial on phone being the highest priority, with Unity8 on the Bionic desktop being the second highest priority.

But I'll also add that offering Unity8 for installation on the Bionic desktop will likely bring lots of attention to UBports, which, hopefully, will translate into more potential Ubuntu Touch users. So I hope that Unity8 on the Bionic desktop won't lag too far behind Xenial on phone.

The most recent edition of "This Week in Mir" reports:

On mainline we’re landing some refactorings to simplify the Wayland input code, and the very first baby steps of logind support, which will make it easy to run Mir-based desktops from gdm.

Is this the "tweak" that you mentioned?

@hummlbach said in We're delaying Ubuntu Touch Q&A 26:

I'm also enjoying the biweekly shows very much and wanted to keep it as it is. But yes, as you said, the devs should decide what is most appropriateis for them.

Yep, that's pretty much what I'm trying to get across. The schedule should be up to the devs and how they can best use their time.

But I'll just add that sometimes less is more. For example, if the devs are asked and answer the same repeated questions (over and over and over) in the Q&A sessions, many will stop watching. That is, in some cases, too much frequency can drive away community engagement. Similarly, scheduling a Q&A, and then canceling it on short notice (for whatever reason), doesn't promote future watching.

Of course, if the devs have a big announcement to make, and want to announce it live, no need to wait for a Q&A. Just schedule a special live announcement, and I'll tune in!

@advocatux said in We're delaying Ubuntu Touch Q&A 26:

I think a Q&A every fortnight is the right balance between too much and I forgot Q&A exists.

Okay, but is every fortnight the right balance between "keep the community engaged" and "the devs have better things to be doing (like developing and/or enjoying real life) than answering the same repetitive questions"?

If the devs have the time and energy to provide a Q&A every fortnight, more power to them. Indeed, I'd enjoy hearing about progress at UBports every fortnight, if not even more often.

But I get the impression that, all things considered (especially time availability for the devs), a monthly Q&A would be more appropriate, and so I asked one of the devs whether a monthly Q&A make would more sense.

@unisuperbox said in We're delaying Ubuntu Touch Q&A 26:

We'll be back at our next regularly scheduled time, April 14th, to update you on a full month of Ubuntu Touch news!

Although I greatly appreciate your updates, to me, a Q&A every two weeks seems a bit more frequent than is needed.

Would a monthly Q&A (maybe on the first Saturday) make more sense?

Some of the reasons why Ubuntu Touch will first be ported to 16.04, and then later ported to 18.04, are discussed at about 24:06 in the Ubuntu Touch Q&A 25.

Also, some of the reasons for the delay in bringing Unity8 to the Ubuntu 18.04 desktop are discussed at about 21:22 in the Ubuntu Touch Q&A 25.

@3arn0wl said in Ubuntu Touch Q&A 25 | March 17, 2018:

What if 18.04 isn't going in the right direction for UT? I read a fair bit about how x has depreciated, or that there's no longer any development of y.

This thread is probably a better place to ask questions of the UBports devs than of me. But since you asked me . . . :)

I'd say say that, unless the UBports devs want to maintain their own fork of Mir indefinitely (they don't), or unless the UBports devs want to drop Mir entirely, and move to some other display server (I don't know if that's even feasible), UT must eventually move to the new Wayland-compliant Mir and 18.04.

If the quickest route to the new Wayland-compliant Mir and 18.04 is through a 16.04 intermediate, I'm all for that. But if completing 16.04 will significantly delay 18.04, then I'm not sure that I see any good reason for completing 16.04.

But again, I have no idea which better reflects the situation. These are issues better addressed by the UBports devs, and so that's why I'd like to hear more about: (a) the biggest hurdles to get 16.04 working; (b) the biggest hurdles to get 18.04 working; and (c) whether the devs have any new thoughts regarding the possibly of skipping 16.04, and moving directly to 18.04.