Why was I banned from GrapheneOS? That’s a good question.
|
|---|
| Why I was banned from GrapheneOS by Daniel Micay) |
You must log in or register to comment.
@maltfield Here we go again, another nothing-burger that doesn’t surprise me at all. I love the project, but Daniel just seems insufferable from his comments in that thread, and other, older, comments.
With all respect to him and the project, but if something as simple, as miniscule, very little drama-worthy such as a thread asking for a simple gesture feature causes him to “lose an hour of [his] work” and to make him worry about more attacks on the project, it just indicates bigger problems than just a simple focus loss due to some small issue that gained virtually ZERO interactions besides a total of four people, including Daniel and the community mod.
I get GOS has been harassed by other projects, but even mentioning a ‘competing’ ROM such as /e/OS or CalyxOS counts as bad behaviour and inciting harassment and this and that, it’s obviously not a good look.
@alextecplayz @maltfield
The nothing-burger is the blog post itself. The whole premise of the article is a falsehood. They were not a contributor (not a single line of code) nor where they banned from GrapheneOS (you can’t be banned from using a FOSS OS that doesn’t track individual users). They were a person filing a feature request that got banned from the issue tracker.Michael Altfield filed a duplicate issue. There was an explanation for why the feature wouldn’t get considered. The issues were eventually deleted because there was spam on the issues, also from other people to be fair, that didn’t respect the rule of using reactions like thumbs up to voice agreement instead of commenting “I want this too”. Spam like that floods the inboxes of developers, which makes it difficult to see other issues arising at the same time.
Altfield subsequently forked the issue tracker and started mentioning the github usernames of the developers over there, trying to get interaction from them about the same feature request. This is strange. The correct reaction would be to fork GrapheneOS and implement the feature himself, instead of forking the issue tracker to act entitled and demand others to implement a feature for you.
Anyway, despite this behavior Alfield was only temporarily banned at first. They could’ve used this time to reconsider how distrubing their spammy behavior was, but they instead choose to continue after the temporary ban was over. So, they were permanently banned.
He was behaving like that back in the Copperhead days. He stole work he didn’t understand from Spender and publically harassed him to the point where Spender/GRsecurity pulled the plug on their public kernel patches. Huge loss for the Linux community.
deleted by creator
This is a blatant and complete fabrication that you are spreading. The project is on good terms with Spender and you have no evidence to support what you are claiming.
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.
Thanks for elaborating. Is Spender still nuts?
@maltfield Here’s another example of I’m guessing Daniel, being an asswipe towards someone that had a genuine concern with the ‘apocalyptic’ way GrapheneOS tends to exaggerate their messages. It’s clear from that sentence that “the final version of GrapheneOS” is not intended to be referring to some 24-hour support or whatever they tried to explain later in the thread.
https://mstdn.io/@eskuero/114824540277758406
Notice the loaded words in the thread, “extreme”, “misrepresenting”, “lying”, and so on. That user wasn’t fucking lying or misrepresenting, they were genuinely concerned after reading that stupidly-written message on their Matrix.
There’s a boatload of threads like these where the GOS account jumps to people’s throats with a knife for the smallest things.
Write something that may not be entirely true, perhaps you’ve heard some rumor or whatever somewhere and just want to get official news? Oops, you’re lying, you’re extremely misrepresenting what we wrote, please don’t ever interact with us again, we’ll ban you, etc.
@alextecplayz @maltfield
GrapheneOS has a team of more than 10 people, the project account is a joint account. Many people can use it, we can’t know whether this was one person or another.Eskuero didn’t seem to post their toot to “express cocern”. They initially seemed to post it in defense of the content of Robert Braxman, who published his video much later than the screenshotted message from the GrapheneOS chat rooms. By that time, the message already was followed up by other messages and it became clear the situation had already improved. I’m sure the conversation with Eskuero would’ve gone much different if they had directly raised any concerns they had instead of using an oudated message of the GrapheneOS project as an excuse for the content of Robert Braxman, who routinely pushes misinformation about multiple open source projects. As a regular community member, mainly active in the chatrooms, I can confirm the GrapheneOS project (members) get(s) very regularly harassed and (personally) attacked. In that context, it makes sense that they doubt the good intentions of some people and that they might use (sometimes imperfect) heurstics to try to make sense of these intentions.
I can agree that the tone of the initial message was quite dramatic though. It was meant to convey frustration because the GrapheneOS project had been asking for community help for weeks and not received it, they felt that the community had been apathic because people with ties within the Android ecosystem could’ve helped them more to receive access to the partner program source code. They quickly followed up those messages with more nuance and additional explanations about what the way forward would be. Robert Braxman had all that context already when he made his video claiming GrapheneOS was dying, so there was no reason to make that statement anymore.
Yeah, I once suggested the camera app from Calyx in their Matrix and I was immediately threatened with a ban
It’s grsec all over again. Quick, someone make a fork and secure funding!
From when I last checked on that topic I couldn’t find much beyond claims by Daniel that other projects had harassed him.
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.
Is that the author or the person who banned them?
Removed by mod
Makes more sense.
