4 ms·

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 t

by 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.
    - strcat 8y ago
      What other project do you think I was involved in where I was pushed out? Why are you spreading libel about me? It was a false claim propagated by James that I was pushed out Rust. I left of my own accord and then someone who followed / supported my work created an uninformed Reddit thread demanding answers after I had chosen to leave and removed myself as a repository contributor. Ask one of the core Rust developers like pcwalton what happened. We had various issues leading up to that point because of my strong opinions about how things should be done and tendency to write very strongly worded arguments about it, but ultimately it was me who decided it wasn't working and left the project. They certainly didn't kick me out of the project for writing comments in a very direct 'tone'. It's not my fault that someone who supported me thought something much different had happened and tried to speak out in support of me when I didn't need or want their help. They should have asked me what had happened before posting on my behalf and creating unnecessary drama. Only the core Rust developers knew that wasn't what had happened so other people tried to justify a decision by them which had not happened. James is a great manipulator and you prove it by falling for this junk. Again, ask one of the core Rust developers what actually happened. Sure, we had strong disagreements about the direction of the project and were bickering a lot. It's completely false that I was kicked out of the project though. After that, I committed to only working on projects where I would fully own and control everything, to avoid further experiences of work being judged based on employer and relationships rather than merit behind the ideas and fair and honest discussions / debates about which direction should be chosen. That led to requiring an explicit arrangement with Copperhead where I would be working on my own project, and the company would be focusing on consulting work and attempting to build a business around the open source project to support it. They explicitly did not own or control it themselves, and then betrayed the arrangement. It's odd that you think it's okay to spread defamation about someone like this without having a clue what actually happened.

by 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.
  - strcat 8y ago
    What other project do you think I was involved in where I was pushed out? Why are you spreading libel about me? It was a false claim propagated by James that I was pushed out Rust. I left of my own accord and then someone who followed / supported my work created an uninformed Reddit thread demanding answers after I had chosen to leave and removed myself as a repository contributor. Ask one of the core Rust developers like pcwalton what happened. We had various issues leading up to that point because of my strong opinions about how things should be done and tendency to write very strongly worded arguments about it, but ultimately it was me who decided it wasn't working and left the project. They certainly didn't kick me out of the project for writing comments in a very direct 'tone'. It's not my fault that someone who supported me thought something much different had happened and tried to speak out in support of me when I didn't need or want their help. They should have asked me what had happened before posting on my behalf and creating unnecessary drama. Only the core Rust developers knew that wasn't what had happened so other people tried to justify a decision by them which had not happened. James is a great manipulator and you prove it by falling for this junk. Again, ask one of the core Rust developers what actually happened. Sure, we had strong disagreements about the direction of the project and were bickering a lot. It's completely false that I was kicked out of the project though. After that, I committed to only working on projects where I would fully own and control everything, to avoid further experiences of work being judged based on employer and relationships rather than merit behind the ideas and fair and honest discussions / debates about which direction should be chosen. That led to requiring an explicit arrangement with Copperhead where I would be working on my own project, and the company would be focusing on consulting work and attempting to build a business around the open source project to support it. They explicitly did not own or control it themselves, and then betrayed the arrangement. It's odd that you think it's okay to spread defamation about someone like this without having a clue what actually happened.