8 ms·

Wait, this is still alive? I thought they died because of politics between the two founders.

lallysingh 8y ago
Looks like they found someone else: https://github.com/Rashed97 https://github.com/Rashed97 [ https://github.com/CopperheadOS/platform_packages_apps_Updater/commit/e175c2f1d7c87800b7c7879fd85f2b6f29ae7758 https://github.com/CopperheadOS/platform_packages_apps_Updat... ]
- Forbo 8y ago
  Looking at the pulse on the Copperhead repos, it doesn't seem like there's been much activity since Daniel left. I don't know how far I would trust Copperhead these days.
  - FredFS456 8y ago
    ... yeah if it's not the original coder at the helm I wouldn't trust them anymore.
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    Rashed has many commits in other related projects, like LineageOs. So there may be some hope. But yeah, Copperhead needs to regain the trust lost when Daniel was pushed out (https://www.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/comments/8qdnn3/goodbye/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/comments/8qdnn3/goodby...)
    - Shelnutt2 8y ago
      Rashed has been in the CyanogenMod -> LineageOS community for a while. He has quite a bit of experience from this and from all my interactions with him he is a solid Android Systems Engineer. I would generally trust Rashed's development but I would still question the company until they prove themselves, which may or may not happen.
    - mindslight 8y ago
      "Copperhead" can't regain trust, because it's a trademark that was effectively stolen using the legal system. Anybody who's had experience with plain business-types in their own salad days knows the pattern of what went down with CopperheadOS - Programmer develops pet project focused on the technicals. Business type sees raw input for his use, offers to partner with Programmer to develop a business around the idea. Programmer isn't terribly interested in what Business type is doing, because it seems boring. Business type goes to work stacking the deck with legal paperwork, because that's his profession. Business type starts dictating to programmer what to work on, undermining original goal of project, likely for quick consulting-style revenue on something tangentially related. Programmer protests this isn't what he signed up for. Business type uses stacked deck to claim legal control over the codebase/etc, converting someone else's real work. I'm just glad to see that Daniel is still posting, and doubly glad that he's still working on the technicals. The name was cool, but alas there it went.
      - hnbroseph 8y ago
        cool story, but the whole Virtuous Programmer vs Villainous Business-Type narrative is a bit of a tired trope. and daniel having been "pushed out" of more than one project makes things a bit more uncertain (at least to me) on who's "obviously" the good guy and who's "obviously" the bad guy. (if that sort of dichotomy even applies)
        mindslight 8y ago
        It's a "trope" because a personal/community project being turned over to a corporate structure and then being steered into the ground is an all too common occurrence. My understanding is that CopperheadOS, the technical project, was entirely the work of Daniel. Even if Daniel would have run it aground himself, adding one more problem certainly didn't help. I'm not going to dredge up the reference, but what it basically came down to is while they both owned equal 50% and each had a board seat, the bylaws broke ties by deferring to the CEO (James). This BATNA is exactly the type of thing that someone focused on the details of legal documents and power relationships will have planned for. While both still "own" 50%, Daniel would have had to go on the legal offensive ($$$) to bring a fiduciary claim, and a court would be hostile to the idea that the real value is based on long term development by a specific developer. The 21st century improvement is that the codebase itself is still available to all, having been permissively licensed.
mindslight 8y ago
Looks like this post is by the business guy who performed the hostile takeover, so it's some sort of zombie.
LukeShu 8y ago
James Donaldson (the CEO) effectively kicked Daniel Micay (the then-CTO) out. Daniel Micay destroyed the signing keys, so any existing users would need to re-format their phone to an image that accepts new signing keys in order to keep receiving updates. In the opinion of many members of the community, without Daniel behind it, it isn't really CopperheadOS. In a technical sense (because of the change in signing keys), as far OTA updates are concerned post-Daniel-CopperheadOS is a distinct operating system from with-Daniel-CopperheadOS. In a social sense (because of the forced change in engineering leadership), as far as many humans are concerned post-Daniel-CopperheadOS is a distinct institution from with-Daniel-CopperheadOS.
- Foxboron 8y ago
  The good news is that Daniel has not stopped experimenting with hardened android. https://github.com/AndroidHardening/ https://github.com/AndroidHardening/
  - folkrav 8y ago
    I'm not familiar with what happened from beginning to end, but regardless of the actual chain of events or if the CEO was right or wrong to kick him out, I'm not sure how users can still trust Daniel after destroying signing keys.
    - LukeShu 8y ago
      He didn't destroy them out of malice. He destroyed them because (from his point of view) they were about to be compromised. If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel and if Daniel is about to lose control of the key to someone else, then destroying the key before it becomes compromised is the responsible and right thing to do.
      - huahe 8y ago
        > If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel and if Daniel is about to lose control of the key to someone else, then destroying the key before it becomes compromised is the responsible and right thing to do. how can you possibly state that when the users have no control or say over this decision?

Looks like they found someone else: https://github.com/Rashed97 https://github.com/Rashed97 [ https://github.com/CopperheadOS/platform_packages_apps_Updater/commit/e175c2f1d7c87800b7c7879fd85f2b6f29ae7758 https://github.com/CopperheadOS/platform_packages_apps_Updat... ]

Forbo 8y ago
Looking at the pulse on the Copperhead repos, it doesn't seem like there's been much activity since Daniel left. I don't know how far I would trust Copperhead these days.
- FredFS456 8y ago
  ... yeah if it's not the original coder at the helm I wouldn't trust them anymore.
- lallysingh 8y ago
  Rashed has many commits in other related projects, like LineageOs. So there may be some hope. But yeah, Copperhead needs to regain the trust lost when Daniel was pushed out (https://www.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/comments/8qdnn3/goodbye/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CopperheadOS/comments/8qdnn3/goodby...)
  - Shelnutt2 8y ago
    Rashed has been in the CyanogenMod -> LineageOS community for a while. He has quite a bit of experience from this and from all my interactions with him he is a solid Android Systems Engineer. I would generally trust Rashed's development but I would still question the company until they prove themselves, which may or may not happen.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    "Copperhead" can't regain trust, because it's a trademark that was effectively stolen using the legal system. Anybody who's had experience with plain business-types in their own salad days knows the pattern of what went down with CopperheadOS - Programmer develops pet project focused on the technicals. Business type sees raw input for his use, offers to partner with Programmer to develop a business around the idea. Programmer isn't terribly interested in what Business type is doing, because it seems boring. Business type goes to work stacking the deck with legal paperwork, because that's his profession. Business type starts dictating to programmer what to work on, undermining original goal of project, likely for quick consulting-style revenue on something tangentially related. Programmer protests this isn't what he signed up for. Business type uses stacked deck to claim legal control over the codebase/etc, converting someone else's real work. I'm just glad to see that Daniel is still posting, and doubly glad that he's still working on the technicals. The name was cool, but alas there it went.
    - hnbroseph 8y ago
      cool story, but the whole Virtuous Programmer vs Villainous Business-Type narrative is a bit of a tired trope. and daniel having been "pushed out" of more than one project makes things a bit more uncertain (at least to me) on who's "obviously" the good guy and who's "obviously" the bad guy. (if that sort of dichotomy even applies)
      - mindslight 8y ago
        It's a "trope" because a personal/community project being turned over to a corporate structure and then being steered into the ground is an all too common occurrence. My understanding is that CopperheadOS, the technical project, was entirely the work of Daniel. Even if Daniel would have run it aground himself, adding one more problem certainly didn't help. I'm not going to dredge up the reference, but what it basically came down to is while they both owned equal 50% and each had a board seat, the bylaws broke ties by deferring to the CEO (James). This BATNA is exactly the type of thing that someone focused on the details of legal documents and power relationships will have planned for. While both still "own" 50%, Daniel would have had to go on the legal offensive ($$$) to bring a fiduciary claim, and a court would be hostile to the idea that the real value is based on long term development by a specific developer. The 21st century improvement is that the codebase itself is still available to all, having been permissively licensed.

mindslight 8y ago

Looks like this post is by the business guy who performed the hostile takeover, so it's some sort of zombie.

LukeShu 8y ago

James Donaldson (the CEO) effectively kicked Daniel Micay (the then-CTO) out. Daniel Micay destroyed the signing keys, so any existing users would need to re-format their phone to an image that accepts new signing keys in order to keep receiving updates. In the opinion of many members of the community, without Daniel behind it, it isn't really CopperheadOS. In a technical sense (because of the change in signing keys), as far OTA updates are concerned post-Daniel-CopperheadOS is a distinct operating system from with-Daniel-CopperheadOS. In a social sense (because of the forced change in engineering leadership), as far as many humans are concerned post-Daniel-CopperheadOS is a distinct institution from with-Daniel-CopperheadOS.

Foxboron 8y ago
The good news is that Daniel has not stopped experimenting with hardened android. https://github.com/AndroidHardening/ https://github.com/AndroidHardening/
- folkrav 8y ago
  I'm not familiar with what happened from beginning to end, but regardless of the actual chain of events or if the CEO was right or wrong to kick him out, I'm not sure how users can still trust Daniel after destroying signing keys.
  - LukeShu 8y ago
    He didn't destroy them out of malice. He destroyed them because (from his point of view) they were about to be compromised. If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel and if Daniel is about to lose control of the key to someone else, then destroying the key before it becomes compromised is the responsible and right thing to do.
    - huahe 8y ago
      > If users trust the key because they trust updates coming from Daniel and if Daniel is about to lose control of the key to someone else, then destroying the key before it becomes compromised is the responsible and right thing to do. how can you possibly state that when the users have no control or say over this decision?