Summary of the ecosystem?

I kind of enjoy the drip-feed of finding out about new community links and tools, that I get from squatting on the forum. Two examples over the last couple of days for me were dangerzone and open collective.

But there would be some benefit to having these things published upfront and in one place somewhere. It took me a while to find the Matrix channel, even, since the FAQ is selective in what it signposts. I know some things come and go, but it doesn’t seem like a big maintenance burden. Does this already exist?

1 Like

In short: If it’s an official thing, it should be on the website in an appropriate place. I’m not aware of any master list of all the unofficial stuff.


I’m pretty sure that all the official channels are listed on the website. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

The rest is… unofficial, so the somewhere may suffer from the same discoverability issues as the tools themselves, but there is certainly no harm in compiling a list of what you’ve found interesting!


“Who’s working with this and how” is often high on the agenda when I’m checking out a project - I don’t see much difference between this and an endorsement or research - and those consumers would never be official in the sense I think you mean, so I’m not following the rationale.

1 Like

Well okay, I don’t know about dangerzone - maybe I’ve just stumbled on the wrong example or maybe being more cautious is appropriate for this project/team. I’d find it useful and I like to understand the thinking better is all.

The idea isn’t a “special” list, because once you make it special then you make it actually reasonable to interpret it as some sort of endorsement rather than something helpful for users. But out of curiosity, would you be interested in a list that actively excluded dangerzone or are there other Qubes consumers you would exclude?

This was once a good list:

1 Like

Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean by this. Can you try rephrasing?

Anyway, I’m just explaining the reason why (to my knowledge) it’s not on the website. I’m not defending that policy or saying it shouldn’t be on the website. That’s up to the website maintainer. If you want, you can file an enhancement request about improving the website.

What do you mean by official?

By “official,” I mean something that the project either endorses or does itself.

There are many Qubes consumers who do not, and would not, welcome a
reference on the Qubes website.
If there is some publicly available source for their use of Qubes then
it might be acceptable to refer to that.

I never presume to speak for the Qubes team.
When I comment in the Forum I speak for myself.

Done, and I’ve added some info there about what Tails does for comparison.

1 Like