They are either defending themselves against personal attacks / harassment (which was also present in this thread before moderation intervention) or correcting unintentional misinformation about GrapheneOS features. That misinformation is often made by drawing a wrong comparison between GrapheneOS and other OSes. Correcting that isn’t harassment, just like defending yourself against personal attacks isn’t harassment.

I’m not going to participate in speculation and rumouring about this. I have an idea about who it might be myself but prefer to not talk about it. Negotations/talks are still ongoing.

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. It doesn’t bundle it and it’s also not part of AOSP so that GrapheneOS is built on AOSP doesn’t matter.

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.

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 tha

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.

They didn’t step away from GrapheneOS. They are the founder and were the lead developer. They only stepped away from the lead developer role because they couldn’t take the harassment anymore. They are now ex-lead developer but are still project member. They haven’t left the project and will not leave the project. They will not cave for harassers and bullies.

You can just read the requirements section on the FAQ page of their website. It explains the reasoning. It’s all based on technical reasons: https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support

There is a lot of misinformation and harassment material circulating online about Daniel Micay. Notice that they are the victim of extensive online bullying which has spread all the way onto KiwiFarms. Would suggest not consuming that content because it won’t give you an accurate depiction at all.

I’m a community member of GrapheneOS and I’ve not had any bad experiences with the GrapheneOS team or Daniel Micay specifically. They maybe communicate a bit more directly than some other people do but they are not being toxic or aggressive at all. I’ve found them to be patient and understanding.

Note that the thing many people describe as “toxic behavior” refers to posts made by GrapheneOS social media accounts in response to harassment. Defending yourself against harassment is not toxic. It might not look good in isolation becuase the quality of those conversations often degrades very quickly, which will have an impact on the GrapheneOS responses, but you have to look at those messages in context.

GrapheneOS is not developed by a single individual. GrapheneOS has a team of around 10 full-time developers. They are not on bad terms with all other OSes, they say positive things about iOS regularly. They were also on positive terms with DivestOS before it was discontinued also mainly because it was being harassed by the same groups GrapheneOS is being harassed by.

The founder of GrapheneOS, to person you are referring to, is not mentally unstable. You are making this statement without any basis. You do not have access to their medical file. What you are saying is hugely inapprioriate and the behavior of a high school bully. Even if it were true (it isn’t), you are being an ableist, which just makes you a mean person.

GrapheneOS only runs on Google phones currently because only Pixels are able to meet the hardware requirmeents. The hardware requirements aren’t a very high bar, other OEMs just don’t prioritize security. GrapheneOS in active talks with a major Android OEM right now in order to help them meet the security requirements for a subset of their future devices. They are very optimistic about how that is going.

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’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 only have one account I’m using on shitjustworks, I also have unused accounts on lemmy.today, lemmy.ml and techncs.de. I use shitjustworks because I feel like the most posts from other instances are visible there. The name is always tranquil_cassowary. I don’t go by other names in the privacy and security communities.

They posted the same blog post in about 12 different threads on Lemmy. I want to join the discussion about it so I reply in multiple threads. If this was a centralized platform I wouldn’t have to do it like that. I would have preferred to reply one time but I feel like the explanation about what actually happened and about how it’s a falsehood (not a contributor, not banned from GrapheneOS …) should be seen by the people reading the post. Given that some people might only see the post on one of the lemmy instances where it got posted, I deemed it desirable to answer in mutliple threads.

The report would contain personal identifiable information like the address etc. Their address was already leaked of course because it was used for the SWATTing attacks but I don’t want to link it so directly on a public post. The events occured in April 2023. If you want information about it and also some more evidence about other harassment you can ask GrapheneOS or the community manager (matchboxbananasynergy) on social media whether they would want to DM you information. If you are in good faith they will send you some info, they also did for other people.

There is evidence of the swatting. You can look it up in the police records of Canada. The harassment is evidenced by many social media posts, including things that are said in this very thread. The project gets attacked a lot, so almost every day there will be a defensive reply, that’s true. If the harassers stop those replies will also stop. Easy.

Responding to attacks is not being high-conflict personality, that’s reversing the roles. People who are harassed and attacked are allowed to defend themselves. Having been part of the GrapheneOS community for almost 2 years, in which Micay is often present, I have to say he is not looking for conflict at all. His messages are often direct, without any bullshit wrapped around it, but he’s a nice and patient person. Note that you can install grapheneos on a second-hand (used) phone or refurbished phone perfectly fine, just make sure it’s not carrier locked. You can verify the integrity of the OS and firmware via the verfied boot hash and the auditor app. That way you don’t really have to trust the seller especially if you buy from a random seller you contact yourself, who is unlikely to target you.

There are many open soruce project who are on very good terms with Daniel Micay and GrapheneOS. The project with which there are conflicts often have people in their circle who are also part of the other projects with which there are conflicts. The conflicts are often related in that way. Besides that, there are no issue, GrapheneOS is on very good terms with most open source projects. Care to explain why you felt attacked?