Critical Questions About UBports Development Direction
Question 1: Why Continue Lomiri Instead of Adopting Existing Mobile DEs?
Why continue developing inherited Lomiri on Mir (which has pivoted to IoT/embedded) instead of adopting KDE Plasma Mobile or Phosh and contributing mobile-specific customizations upstream to benefit the entire Linux mobile ecosystem?
KDE has maintained Plasma desktop for 25+ years, created the Qt/Kirigami framework that scales perfectly between mobile and desktop, and continues massive improvements through 2024-2025 (they're basically saints of the FOSS community at this point). Wouldn't contributing to their mobile effort multiply your impact rather than maintaining a legacy Unity8 fork alone?
Question 2: Why Maintain Core Apps Instead of Using Existing FOSS Software?
Debian doesn't develop calculators, browsers, or music players - why does UBports? Given the maintenance burden (you're actively seeking maintainers for core apps), wouldn't it be more sustainable to adopt existing FOSS applications (GNOME Calculator, Firefox, VLC, etc.) and focus development efforts on OS-level integration and hardware enablement?
Mike Gabriel is now packaging Ubuntu Touch core apps FOR DEBIAN - doesn't this prove you could just USE Debian apps instead of maintaining your own?
Question 3: Why Create a Walled Garden That's Neither Android Nor Proper Linux?
The current architecture creates a walled garden: Android apps only work in Waydroid containers, Linux apps only in Libertine containers, and native Click apps are isolated. Meanwhile, standard apt packages can't be installed normally.
Look, I have no problem with containers as wrappers/isolators where the app is unaware it's in a container and just works. But your approach makes it impossible to run existing GUI apps that aren't factored into your containers - no display output, no sound, nothing! Apps need to be specifically adapted or they simply don't function.
Wouldn't adopting standard Linux infrastructure (Wayland + standard package management) allow both better Android integration AND native Linux app support, making Ubuntu Touch a true Linux phone rather than a third platform that's neither Android nor proper Linux?
Question 4: Why Not Focus on Universal Infrastructure Like Halium?
With Halium providing excellent hardware enablement that even Droidian uses, why not focus UBports' limited resources on perfecting the adaptation layer between Halium and standard Linux distributions (making your hardware work universally available), rather than maintaining a complete separate mobile stack?
When you contribute to Halium, everyone benefits. When you develop a custom browser, even you suffer from the maintenance burden while creating unnecessary competition with established browsers.
Question 5: Why Ignore 15+ Years of Mobile UX Evolution?
Ubuntu Touch appears to ignore 15+ years of Android UX evolution and established design standards like Material Design, which billions of users understand intuitively. Instead, it starts from scratch with Lomiri's outdated Unity8 paradigms from 2013-2016.
Android spent over a decade perfecting their UI year by year through user testing with billions of people. This isn't just aesthetics - it's psychology. People got used to these patterns. The whole world did.
Without being dramatically better than industry standards (and let's be honest - it's not), isn't this approach destined to remain a niche product? You have to make something twice as good or comply with standards. Otherwise you end up like Linux desktop was for decades - a niche geek thing that only recently started climbing out.
Why not adopt modern, proven UI patterns or at least offer Material Design theming to reduce friction for new users?
Question 6: Why Custom Containers When Wayland is the Proven Standard?
Wayland is now the proven, stable industry standard display server used by default in major distributions like Fedora and Ubuntu. It's secure, performs well, and standard Linux apps work natively with it.
Why maintain custom container systems (Libertine for Linux apps, Waydroid for Android) instead of using standard Wayland and focusing development on phone-specific adaptations like touchscreen support, high-DPI scaling, rotation, and battery management?
It should be vanilla Linux that just factors in that you use a touchscreen instead of mouse and keyboard, that your screen is small but high-DPI, screen rotation and such. Not making YET ANOTHER custom GUI forcing EVERY OTHER software maintainer to develop specifically for your GUI!
Question 7: Why Add Yet Another Package Manager to Linux's Existing Hell?
Linux already suffers from package manager fragmentation (apt, dnf, pacman, snap, flatpak) which discourages professional software development. For developers, packaging into ALL existing package managers is pure hell already - this is why Linux development sucks for devs and there's so little professional software on Linux.
Click packages add yet another format that developers must support. Even Mozilla, a major FOSS advocate, declined to maintain packages for Ubuntu Touch's system.
Wouldn't adoption of standard package management (allowing normal apt install) lower barriers for developers and increase app availability? How can Ubuntu Touch attract professional software when it adds to an already problematic fragmentation issue?
Question 8: Custom Browser - Really? How Many Years Until You Have Extensions?
Developing a custom browser (Morph) creates a maintenance burden and unnecessary competition with established browsers like Firefox/Chromium.
Even if you succeed, even if this browser works perfectly and you have resources to maintain it - how many YEARS do you think it will take the community to develop even HALF the extensions that Firefox/Chrome have? And extension developers would need to maintain Firefox extensions, Chrome extensions, Opera extensions, AND your custom browser extensions? REALLY?!
Meanwhile, Halium development benefited everyone (Droidian, postmarketOS, etc.) because it's universal hardware enablement. Why not focus limited resources on infrastructure that benefits the entire Linux mobile ecosystem rather than duplicating existing software that already works elsewhere?
Question 9: If You Want a Walled Garden, Why Not Just Use LineageOS?
If you want a walled garden but FOSS - use LineageOS. Yes, there are vendor blobs, but Ubuntu Touch doesn't free us from them! It uses the same blobs in Halium.
LineageOS at least gives you the entire Android app ecosystem. Ubuntu Touch gives you neither Android NOR proper Linux - just isolation and containers everywhere.
What's the point? What problem are you actually solving that LineageOS OR a proper Linux mobile DE (like KDE Plasma Mobile/Phosh on standard Wayland) doesn't solve better?
Thank you for acknowledging my questions !