4
GrapheneOS: Another contributor attacked & banned by Daniel Micay (tech.michaelaltfield.net)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/privacy@programming.dev
53 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Why was I banned from GrapheneOS? That’s a good question.

Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay
Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

He crashed and burned the Copperhead project, yes. Copperhead was just him and a business partner that he totally fucked over.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Yeah sounds about right. The only reason I'm even running graphene right now is because I heard he left the project. Otherwise I wasn't sure I wanted to be dependent on it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    GrapheneOS is open source, just because you disagree with who runs it doesn't mean the code itself is bad. Its an extremely popular project now & there are a lot of eyes on it.

    It has long since evolved beyond something Daniel can simply destroy as a whim & any attempt to sabotage it would be met with a roaring backlash & warnings from pretty much everyone in the privacy & security space.

    I think you're good to keep on using GrapheneOS, there simply exists no better option. Though if you are set on switching I guess CalyxOS (if they remain in operation) or BraxOS would be the best alternatives.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    XZ was also open source...albeit less eyes on it probably. Point is we take "open source" for granted and assume it means "secure" but the person running a project, even an open source one, can do real damage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I agree with that sentiment fully, just because something is open source doesn't mean it's automatically secure. Though when an extremely popular project's entire focus is high security & the specific eyes on the project are the exact people who are professionals in security, I'm more inclined to trust that it would be pretty hard for Daniel to slip in a critical flaw into the code.

    Its just to me the whole idea that one man can sabotage a project of this scale seems pretty overboard. GrapheneOS is a great tool. A lot of people hated Edison, he was a huge ass with an even larger ego, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't use DC electricity. I would argue that if you dislike Daniel McKay, that same thought process should still apply. You may not think he's the greatest guy, personally I don't have any strong opinions on him. But what he's done is undoubtedly extremely helpful to anyone concerned with both privacy & security.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    The business partner fucked over him by stealing a bunch of crytpo donations that were meant for CopperheadOS which later became GrapheneOS. CopperheadOS which was agreed with Donaldson to be independent from the Copperhead company which was created to support the development of Copperhead but wasn't allowed to control the CopperheadOS nor to have any ownership or copyright over the code.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent