Talk:Ubuntu Touch

Name change
Apparently this has been "confirmed from various sources that the Ubuntu mobile platform is currently being developed not only for Smartphones, but also for Tablets, and is now named Ubuntu Touch". It would be nice to see those sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Inside the UBports project, it's definitely called Ubuntu Touch: https://ubuntu-touch.io https://ubports.com NeoTheThird (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Should this article even exist?
I'm wondering if this article should exist, arguably Ubuntu Touch is just a metapackage for Ubuntu, and they are not separate systems.Aaronmhamilton (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, although we do have enough refs for WP:N for a stand alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Relationship to Cyanogenmod
The article seems to miss the early association with running Ubuntu's new smartphone/tablet OS off what's basically a fork of CyanogenMod with the Android framework and stuff ripped out in favour of Ubuntu's framework. It mostly makes clear that the kernel is Android, which means little as the Android Linux and stock Linux kernels continue to converge. Ubuntu's own documentation still suggests that Ubuntu Touch is basically a heavily modded fork of CyanogenMod. See Ubuntu Touch's building and porting Wiki pages. This article might be applicable as well. Likewise Ubuntu Touch's manifest still references CyanogenMod git repositories for some stuff. XSpidey01x (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It would be inaccurate to describe Ubuntu Touch as CyanogenMod with some parts replaced. The early Ubuntu Touch images booted into a cut down Android user space and ran Ubuntu in an LXC container.  Most stuff ran on the Ubuntu side, with the Android side hosting Surface Flinger and the user space portions of the graphics drivers (accessed via libhybris).  With the more recent builds, this was flipped so the main user space was Ubuntu with Android parts running in a container.  Further more, Android's Surface Flinger display server is no longer being used in the recent builds.
 * If you were building a device from scratch and had graphics drivers, media codecs, etc that weren't built on top of Bionic, you could probably do away with the Android container all together. But for existing devices it makes a lot of sense to reuse the device enablement work done for Android. --James (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Android-forked Linux kernel = Linux kernel mainsream + binder, ashmem, pmem, wakelocks, logger, more? AFAIK Android only adds these thingies and removes nothing. The big deal with Android is actually not the kernel, but that is replaced glibc with libBionic, and libBionic does not aim to be POSIX/glibc-compliant! It would be nice to write whether Ubuntu Touch uses libBionic or glibc? User:ScotXW t@lk 16:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You'd find both glibc and bionic on Ubuntu Phone images. The main system was all built with binaries from the standard Ubuntu archive, so used glibc. There was a container providing an Android-like environment with bionic, for the few binary-only components we received from the OEM. --James (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

INPUT: Canonical's "Open Input Framework" and "uTouch"
This article here: http://lwn.net/Articles/541336/ mentions Canonical's Open Input Framework and also their multi-touch input stack. Are these components of the Linux kernel like Direct Rendering Manager and evdev or do they have some component inside of the Linux kernel they talk to and are user space components, like e.g. libdrm is (illustrated here)? I would like to read more about it in this article (and with enough material create distinct articles, like there is one for Maliit. I found an elder article: LWN.net 2012-05-22 A uTouch architecture introduction Does anybody know what they mean by "window server"? A window manager or a display manager? ScotXW (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Naming clarification
The name Ubuntu Touch shouldn't be used anymore, it's all just Ubuntu now. It would be nice if somebody could update this page somehow to reflect that. http://mhall119.com/2014/02/there-is-no-touch-only-ubuntu/ Mhall119 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well we can't cite your blog (WP:SPS), so is there an official announcement, perhaps from when the name was changed?


 * We also have another problem and that is if we are going to change the page name what do we change it to? Should this now just be merged and redirected to Ubuntu (operating system)? - Ahunt (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree this page should not really exist. It's the same OS and even the same user interface, Unity. We should start systematically removing all links to this page and replace them with links to the main Ubuntu page. And maybe put a section in the main Ubuntu page about smartphones, tablets, and touch. 129.10.9.42 (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I also agree that it's one operating system and should probably be a section of the Ubuntu page, but it might be difficult to get our heads round doing that and there was never an official announcement that Ubuntu Touch was just Ubuntu, it was always based on Ubuntu desktop and intended to be fully merged at some point. Maybe we should wait until the release schedules for Ubuntu Touch and Ubuntu desktop are merged (at the moment Touch is based on 15.04 whereas Desktop is 16.04) and for when Click is dropped on Touch in favour of APT+Snappy on both systems and for the Desktop to adopt Unity 8 as default. Then they would be the same operating system, but whilst Hall's blog post does point out that they are the same in some respects at the moment, I don't think they're really similar enough for Wikipedia to be able to support a merge of articles? So is waiting for Touch and Desktop to converge more a good idea on how to progress on this? Ads20000 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not just one operating system. It's specific to mobile devices. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It has separate images at the moment, and I think it relies on some Android software (mostly drivers) but other than that and the differences I described before, they're the same. Once the differences I mentioned previously are resolved, the only differences (as far as I know) will be the fact that the images are built for ARM and that they will contain different drivers. The whole point is that they will eventually be converged. But I do think that we should wait until more progress is made and, hopefully, some reliable sources report on full convergence before we merge the pages. Ads20000 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that this is no longer the case. Under the umbrella of the UBports project, the operating system is called Ubuntu Touch, so that it's easy to tell the difference between it and the desktop version: https://ubuntu-touch.io https://ubports.com NeoTheThird (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

relationship to tizen, sailfish os and co
I found this two SVGs illustrating the relationship of (some) of the code base of the operating systems. Would be nice to a) bring them up-to-date and b) mention Ubuntu Touch and WebOS and FirefoxOS and what not, in case their share core other then the Linux kernel. BTW, can anybody tell what besides binder, ashmem and pmem is in the Android-fork of the Linux kernel? ScotXW (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What display server does Ubuntu Touch use?
Hi everyone, it's not X11, see here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Touch/FAQ#Which_applications_do_run_on_Ubuntu_Touch.3F So is it SurfaceFlinger (still)? http://phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTMwODg Regards --149.201.47.43 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to be Mir already, while it was Surfaceflinger before http://askubuntu.com/questions/360341/how-to-switch-from-mir-to-surfaceflinger -- 5.145.128.4 (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest preview
Should the second citation on the 'latest preview' section of the infobox be converted into a 'note'? The article makes a rather important point about the fact that the 'latest preview' is actually 15.04 rc-proposed (due to the fact that Touch and Desktop are not fully converged yet, see my reply to the Naming Clarification section above), though for the sake of the infobox the main number should probably still be 16.10 since that's more of a 'release'. Ads20000 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Ubuntu Touch is *not* discontinued! It's just moved under the umbrella of the UBports project!
Please stop spreading the information that Ubuntu Touch has been completely discontinued! It has been moved from Canonical to UBports.

* https://ubports.com * https://ubuntu-touch.io * https://github.com/ubports * https://ubports.com/blog * http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Ubuntu-Touch-Not-Dead * http://news.softpedia.com/news/ubuntu-touch-and-unity-8-are-not-dead-ubports-community-will-keep-them-alive-514620.shtml
 * Project sites
 * In the media

NeoTheThird (talk) 12:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to inform everyone that OTA-4 has arrived - the article lists OTA-2 as the latest release! This release is significant, as it rebases UT onto 16.04LTS https://ubports.com/blog/ubports-blog-1/post/ubuntu-touch-rc-ota-4-148 PLEASE CAN THE ARTICLE BE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CURRENT STANDING OF UT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3arn0wl (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A source would help with that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletions
Ubuntu Touch is now being maintained and developed as a community project. Although it takes a good deal of its code from the Ubunutu OS it is a distinct operating system in that it draws open source code from other places too.

Much of the information contained in the currently published page is somewhat out of date, and the UBports community is keen to ensure that Wikipedia is accurate.

I would appreciate any suggestions as to how you think we might make the proposed page less promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3arn0wl (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this issue here. First off Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the projcet's website and, as such, it details the complete history of subject, so you can't just wipe out the history like that. Instead we add to the history. The second thing is that if you are with UBPorts than you are in a conflict of interest with regard to this subject. As that links explains, you should stop editing the page and instead make suggestions for changes here on the talk page, where they will be assessed by neutral editors and changes incorporated, where appropriate.


 * If the UBPorts project is that divergent from Ubuntu Touch, perhaps it would be better to sort of sum up this article and start a new one about the forked project, linked from here, if enough refs can be found to establish independent notability. - Ahunt (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"insertion of promotional material and external links in text. "
Hi

I'm trying to update the Ubuntu Touch wikipedia page, and I seem to keep hitting a wall...

I am more than happy to delete the external links I included, but I find the idea strange, since I thought you wanted external corroboration?

Can you also point me to where you think I have inserted promotional material, please?

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3arn0wl (talk • contribs) 16:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You have indicated above that you are affiliated with UBPorts and so in a conflict of interest, which means you need to refrain from editing the article. You keep removing the rather extensive history of this software and making it all about UBPorts instead. As per WP:EL, external links are not permitted in article text. Your whole cut down version seemed written to promote UBPorts and just send people to the UBPorts website. As I indicated above, if you think new developments are worth adding then post the refs here and neutral editors can assess whether they should be added or not. But we are not going to delete tons of history to turn this into an article all about how wonderful UBPorts is for picking up this project. - Ahunt (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry - I'd missed your response :/
"If the UBPorts project is that divergent from Ubuntu Touch, perhaps it would be better to sort of sum up this article and start a new one about the forked project, linked from here, if enough refs can be found to establish independent notability."

UBports is a fork of Ubuntu. Canonical are no longer developing Ubuntu Touch.

We initially tried to start a new page, but UBports redirects to the Ubuntu Touch page. When I asked for help they suggested it would be better to edit the UT page. I feel I'm going round in circles a bit.

(I'm not an experienced editor of Wikipedia.)

My involvement with UBports is merely as an end user of the product, and thus a member of the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3arn0wl (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think one of the key issues that needs to be addressed is what has UBPorts done so far with the software? As far as I can see, in terms of the amount of coding, the work by UBPorts has been small compared to the work previously done by Canonical, so historically they are a small part of the story and shouldn't be the main focus of the history of the software. They are mentioned in then lead, but is there anything more than that, that can be said in terms of development history? - Ahunt (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, the project is much smaller now that Canonical is not funding the development. However, there have been 3 OTA upgrades in the year since UBports took over. These are mainly bug fixes, ensuring the smooth running of the platform. The developers are working on rebasing the OS onto Ubuntu 16.04, which will allow more features to be implemented (snaps, etc.). There is also a lively, if small community of users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3arn0wl (talk • contribs)


 * Given that very low level of work and the lack of new hardware vendors who have picked up up, then UBPorts contribution to the history of the software is pretty minimal so far, although that may change over time, of course. Given that the lead mentions the take over of the project by UBPorts, I am not sure that much more needs to be added about their work on it at present. There is certainly no reason to remove the existing, rather extensive history that is already there. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think there is real concern that the perception is that the project has been terminated, when really it hasn't. Would you consider UBports' efforts too small to merit a separate entry in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3arn0wl (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the article is very clear right now that the project is continuing under UBPorts. It is stated right in the lead section, in fact in the very first sentence. I have clarified some of the wording there. If all UBPorts has put out so far is a couple do "bug fix" versions then that is pretty minor for a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3arn0wl (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

"OpenStore" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect OpenStore. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 31 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)