It won’t apply to GrapheneOS. It only applies to certified OSes and GrapheneOS is not certified because it doesn’t license Google Mobile Services.

GrapheneOS still intends to support all the supported devices until EOL. The sideloading change doesn’t affect them. It won’t apply to GrapheneOS. It only applies to certified OSes and GrapheneOS is not certified because it doesn’t license Google Mobile Services. As per the rip out of the device trees for Pixels, that just makes Pixels like other phones. GrapheneOS has been able to expand it’s automation to build that device support themselves. For new devices, making the support will take longer than it did in the past though, but they will still support those Pixels, as long as they meet the hardware requirements and still allow third-party OS support with all security features intact. Besides that GrapheneOS is actively talking with a major Android OEM right now in order to help them reach the security requirements for a subset of their future devices. They are very optimistic about that.

Android is Linux of course since the Android kernel is a Linux kernel. I’m aware you are probablly referring to using traditional Linux OSes that are typically used on desktops on mobile phones. That would, however, be a significant regression for security. Android and iOS are both modern mobile OSes with an in-depth security model which includes a mandatory app sandbox with a sane permission model. This is not present on traditional desktop OSes. This is not meant to diss on those OSes, they are just children of their time, they were created much earlier, security practices have evolved. I can see why it would be a fun experience though to tinker with, it would just not be a secure experience and it’s unlikely to get there because the improvements in traditional Linux distros go much slower than they go on Android and Android is already massively ahead.

It won’t apply to GrapheneOS. It only applies to certified OSes and GrapheneOS is not certified because it doesn’t license Google Mobile Services.

It won’t apply to GrapheneOS. It only applies to certified OSes and GrapheneOS is not certified because it doesn’t license Google Mobile Services.

GrapheneOS still intends to support all the supported devices until EOL. The sideloading change doesn’t affect them. It won’t apply to GrapheneOS. It only applies to certified OSes and GrapheneOS is not certified because it doesn’t license Google Mobile Services. As per the rip out of the device trees for Pixels, that just makes Pixels like other phones. GrapheneOS has been able to expand it’s automation to build that device support themselves. For new devices, making the support will take longer than it did in the past though, but they will still support those Pixels, as long as they meet the hardware requirements and still allow third-party OS support with all security features intact. Besides that GrapheneOS is actively talking with a major Android OEM right now in order to help them reach the security requirements for a subset of their future devices. They are very optimistic about that.

It won’t apply to GrapheneOS. It only applies to certified OSes and GrapheneOS is not certified because it doesn’t license Google Mobile Services.

I think you underestimate the burden of misinformation being spread about you and your passion project online, and having a KiwiFarms thread about you on the internet. The harassment also has a real life impact because the founder has been swatted multiple times, endangering their lifes. So they can sadly do much more harm than just being a keyboard warrior. And besides that, it also has an impact on cooperation the project can do with other organisations and companies. GrapheneOS has asked whether other organisaties would want to share their Android partner access with them and they got replies stating that they would want to share the partner access but will refrain from sharing it becuase they were scared that if people found out they helped that they would also get harassed. Also, GrapheneOS had tried for many years to get a cooperation with a non-Google OEM to support other hardware than just Pixels and the harassment has also been an issue for things like that in the past. Luckily, GrapheneOS is currently in active talks with an OEM though who hasn’t taken any issue with it, so let’s hope for the best.

I looked for the posts once when they got post-spammed across all of Reddit and the Fediverse by the OP. Now I just get notifications for things happening in the replies. That’s how these social media things work, there are notification inboxes. As I said, I’m not Daniel you can verify it by looking in the Discord. I’m passionate about this project, I think having a positive passion towards something isn’t that strange. Being passionate about harassing a project and an open source developer, however, seems a bit stranger.

They are not Daniel. There just are multiple people disagreeing with you. Despite you being toxic and supporting harassment content, community members and GrapheneOS users replying here have stayed very mature and polite towards you. I would look in the mirror first of all, if I were you.

I’m not a GrapheneOS developer, nor part of the GrapheneOS team, I’m a GrapheneOS user and community member. I can’t go ship code. Agreed that open source development is a difficult work environment due to some people feeling heavily entitled and those people being very vocal. As to for the actual GrapheneOS team, they would love to waste less time with responding to attacks and false information. However, it’s a very normal, human response to not want misinformation about yourself and your project to thrive all across the internet. This also can hurt the project in many ways, it’s not an ego thing.

Cool, so this means we can dismiss your claim that we are all alts of Daniel?

I’ll try to help you with following the instructions from Skorp to verify that the article is completely false (the evidence):

• https://github.com/GrapheneOS
• https://github.com/maltfield

Where are the GrapheneOS contributions? Nowhere.

I’m a real person and long-time community member. I’m not an account created by Daniel. You can go to the GrapheneOS Discord and search for from: tranquil_cassowary and see that I have posts going way back in time, on Matrix I used to go by stackedbedrock@arcticfoxes.net and now also go by tranquil_cassowary@arcticfoxes.net. My style of writing is also not the same at all, as is my level of English. It’s probably easier for you though to assume that everyone who disagrees with you is one person, so that only one person would be disagreeing with you.

I’m not part of GrapheneOS. I’m a community member. I’m very active in the GrapheneOS chat rooms. I’m not a moderator, nor a developer nor do I have any other role in the GrapheneOS team. I’m passionate about the project, given that I use it a lot, see that there is misinformation being spread, and want to contribute to correcting that. You seem to not understand that there is a community and user base around GrapheneOS that cares about the project and is willing to help issue corrections about stuff in online discussions.

I doubt the OP had good intentions. The title is a complete lie, as I have explained in other comments. They got banned because of the way they kept pinging and tagging GrapheneOS project members on GitHub because their feature request was not considered and the issue got locked and deleted because there was too much spam on the issue. If they would’ve just stop doing that, in order to avoid the developers inboxes being flooded about one single issue, there would have been no conflict. if developers inboxes get flooded about one single issue, other more urgent issues might get burried under the noise, which is not good. It’s reasonable that the team decided to shut the discussion down.

I’m in active community member in the GrapheneOS community. I go by the same name there as I’m using here. It became clear from the community chat that a lot of misinformation and lies are spread about GrapheneOS on social media. I’m passionate about the project, which I rely upon everyday so I want to do my part in helping to correct any misinformation out there. You can’t argue with the fact that the post that has been made is a complete lie. The title is a complete falsehood. They were not a contributor, nor are they banned from using GrapheneOS. The reason I’m active in multiple communities on Lemmy about this is because the OP has decided to spread his blogpost on multiple Lemmy instances, mtuliple subreddits, Mastodon, Linkedin, … If they spread in in multiple channels, users and community members who want to discuss GrapheneOS online will also show up in multiple channels to discuss it. I would prefer to only have to reply to one post, they decided to make 12 posts on Lemmy (if I counted correctly). And yes, I made my account yesterday. Am I not allowed? Do I have to wait 2 years and engage in random discussions not related to my interests before I join the threads about topics that I’m passionate about?

Your blogpost is highly inaccurate and a heavy misportrayal of the events that occured. The title is completely wrong already. You did not get banned from GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS is a free and open source operating system, you can’t be banned from using it and the developers would also not wish to do so. You were instead banned from the OS issue tracker on GitHub because of spam and inapprioriate behavior. You were also blocked by multiple GrapheneOS developers on GitHub, not solely Daniel Micay, for continuing to mention them and sending notifications their way even via other repositories than the official GrapheneOS issue tracker. Also, you are not a contributor at all. You have never contributed to GrapheneOS, not a single line of code. Unless you will call issue tracker spam a contribution, but that’s a very big stretch.

Now, as to what actually happened. You wanted GrapheneOS to implement a certain feature, they did not deem it desirable. Instead of accepting this, you kept spamming the issue tracker. The issue got deleted because it caused too much spam from other accounts as well who kept saying they also wanted the feature instead of following the rules of the issue tracker that you should upvote a post if you agree. After getting banned, you forked the issue tracker and started pinging a bunch of GrapheneOS developers. This behavior is insanely inapprioriate in the FOSS world. GrapheneOS is free, yet you act insanely entitled, as if the GrapheneOS developers owe you anything. They also clearly explained to you on multiple occasions why the feature you proposed is undiserable.

If you disagree, the solution in open source is to fork GrapheneOS and make your own changes to the source code instead of endlessly complaining to the developers of the original project, who can’t be forced to follow your opinion. They had every right to ban you because you kept making a scene out of something minor like a non-accepted feature request. Many feature requests get rejected, yet you make this whole drama about it and continue to do so.

On top of all that, you link misinformation and harassment about the GrapheneOS project in your blog post. The videos you link from content creator containg bullying and fabrications about the project and the founder. They are also entirely unrelated to how they dealt with your issue on the issue tracker.

It’s a team of around 10 full time developers and also other project members with moderation responsibilities. Some of them sadly have to deal with adressing harassment on a daily basis yes. But what is the alterantive? Just letting yourself be harassed? Would you also reply like this to a person getting bullied? “Just ingore the bullies, don’t defend yourself against them and let your personality speak for yourself!” That’s not fair. GrapheneOS has every right to defend themselves.

Most people get banned for a clearly stated reason and many people who post harassment material in the community even get given second chances if it becomes clear they just do this because they are misinformed instead of being malicious.

GrapheneOS does not make many posts on their social media timelines about other projects which other people think are competing in the same space as GrapheneOS. Most of their posts referring to other projects are in reply of posts from other people that tagged (@'ed) GrapheneOS in their post. GrapheneOS replies to these people to inform them. Like many companies and oranganisation do, it’s okay to point out how your project differs from others.

Many projects that claim or think to compete with GrapheneOS make many claims regarding the security and privacy they would offer even if their appraoch actually is detrimental to security and privacy compared to the upstream projects (AOSP) they are based on. This mismarketing is a big problem, it makes sense that GrapheneOS points this out if people are tagging them in social media post while putting them in the same category as those other OSes.

You are also reverting the situation. The other projects started personal attacks and harassment first. GrapheneOS just replies to it. Defending yourself from harassment and bullying is not bullying. Don’t blame the victim. Don’t rever the roles.

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.

They did not leave the project. They are still a developer, a director of the GrapheneOS foundation, and someone shaping the direction and quality of the operating system. They did step down in their role as lead developer though, which was taken over by another person, who is also a director. They also lowered their public social media presence on their personal accounts, in order to avoid harassment and attacks.

Copperhead OS was supposed to be independent of the Copperhead company. They were not in the right to just take over the infrastructure and claim ownership or copyright of the code.