GrapheneOS: Another contributor attacked & banned by Daniel Micay
Daniel Micay banned me from GrapheneOS. Why? It was for the silliest reason...
Why was I banned from GrapheneOS? That’s a good question.
| Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay) |
You're viewing a single thread.
Yeah strcat has been an ass since the Copperhead days. He's set back Linux security at least a decade by pissing off Spender of GRsecurity to the point of making him remove the public patches (not that I think Spender was right to do that, but I understand why it happened after what Mackay did).
The dude is toxic.
Didn't he leave the project though?
He crashed and burned the Copperhead project, yes. Copperhead was just him and a business partner that he totally fucked over.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is it even possible to remove public patches that are already used?
That information you posted about Spender and GRsecurity is false. That isn't why the patches were removed. The project is in good standing and contact with Spender.
Also, your comment about crashing and burning the Copperhead project is blatantly false as well. The other business partner attempted a hostile takeover that was rebuffed.
This blog post that they have posted across the fediverse, and multiple other platforms is a near complete fabrication of the timeline and what actually occurred. Anyone who has gone to GitHub to look at it has found that maltfield's claims are baseless and they are acting inappropriate childish and unacceptable manner.
You are just saying things without a shred of proof and no one is asking for any. So here I am: Please provide proof of all of these claims.
You are just saying things without a shred of proof
Likewise.
Please provide proof of all of these claims.
Here is the information about Spender and GRsecurity copied from my other post:
It was after GRsecurity became private that they had an issue with people making upstream security contributions, particularly upstreaming anything from the GRsecurity patches. They had disagreements about that, and then moved past it and are on good terms now.
It's absolutely ridiculous to claim that Micay has anything to do with them making things private.
https://grsecurity.net/announce
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10126319
It was Wind River, owned by Intel, which was the main offender for upstreaming the patches. Micay was the one who introduced GRsecurity in Arch Linux and did all the integration it had for PaX exceptions and the start of RBAC support (systemd was an issue at the time). It was afterwards once it became private that it was awkward because they didn't want people upstreaming or maintaining ports of their work but at the time Micay was maintaining GRsecurity in Arch Linux and GrapheneOS (then called CopperheadOS) was using the PaX subset for kernel hardening, so there were existing uses of it to try to keep going in some way.
Hello Daniel. Why do you keep creating alts and then calling everything fake news with no proof besides "google it yourself"?
Hi, I'm a community member which can easily be verified, not Micay. Feel free to visit the chatrooms and look for my name.
This blog post is verifiably false. All it takes is looking at the actual GitHub repos to see it. This person wasn't "banned from GrapheneOS". They were blocked on the repo because they were repeatedly pinging the developers and acting in an immature way because they didn't get the feature request fulfilled.
It was posted across as many socials as they could to stir up drama and harassment towards the project. It's completely transparent.
Claims (yours or otherwise) without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
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):
Where are the GrapheneOS contributions? Nowhere.
You're drinking the strcat Koolaid. There was no take over. His business partner was mearly looking at avenues of monetization and dipshit blew a fuse.
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.
