Bug Reports, Software Development and Feature Requests

From Whonix
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How to Report (Security) Bugs in the Whonix Operating System. Software development cycle, patches, and responsiveness to feedback and feature requests.

Bug Report Recommendations[edit]

Non-critical Bugs[edit]

Users who find bugs are encouraged to report them to the Whonix forumsarchive.org. To assist developers, please refer to the Reporting Guidelines further below when describing the problem.

Once notified issues are reproduced and confirmed, developers discuss the problem in order to find a suitable solution or workaround. All Whonix source code fixes and related matters are implemented as quickly as possible and the finding is posted for the public benefit.

Security Vulnerabilities[edit]

  • Responsible disclosurearchive.org: Users are kindly asked to privately report security bugs and describe the problem in detail - see the recommended Reporting Guidelines below for guidance. Lead Whonix developer Patrick Schleizer should be contacted via OpenPGP encrypted mail before the information is published in public forums; see Contacting Whonix developers. In this way, vulnerabilities can be patched without endangering the Whonix population and the notifier can be credited with the finding(s) after the change reaches the stable repository (or next Whonix release).
  • Only Whonix specific vulnerabilities: Only vulnerabilities that are directly caused by Whonix source codearchive.org should responsibly disclosed. Vulnerabilities in upstream projects (such as Linux, GNU, ...) should be reported upstream.

Reporting Guidelines[edit]

Before developers take time to answer concerns, the reporter should make a reasonable attempt to demonstrate it is an actual issue.

  1. Make sure it is an actual bug report and not a support request.
  2. Please use Search Engines and see Documentation First
  3. Read Support.
  4. Learn about Self Support First Policy.
  5. How to Ask Smart Questionsarchive.org
  6. How to Report Bugs Effectivelyarchive.org
  7. XyProblemarchive.org

Whonix, Qubes OS and most other software projects expect thorough reports to include: [1]

  1. Whonix version and platform.
  2. Affected component(s) or functionality.
  3. Steps to reproduce the behavior.
  4. Expected behavior.
  5. Actual behavior - including detailed console output.
  6. Context - How has this issue affected you? What are you trying to accomplish? Providing context helps us come up with a solution that is most useful in the real world.
  7. Relevant Documentation that was consulted.
  8. Any related, non-duplicate issues (bugs)archive.org.

The following example report would be considered wholly insufficient by Whonix developers:

  • Platform: Non-Qubes-Whonix 17.
  • Affected functionality: Updating/upgrading the system.
  • Steps to reproduce: Update the system in a terminal.
  • Expected behavior: No error messages appear.
  • Actual behavior: The message "70 signatures not checked due to missing keys" appears.
  • Context: Curiosity.

Instead, further indicators are necessary in order to meet the threshold of a bug report.

Sample Bug Report[edit]

In many cases only developers, developers-alike and very technical users will be able to report an actual issue based upon console output. A sample, thorough bug report is given below.

Table: Example Whonix Bug Report

Indicator Description
Whonix version All Whonix 17 variants (Non-Qubes-Whonix and Qubes-Whonix).
Affected component(s) or functionality Whonix-Gateway (sys-whonix) firewall.
Steps to reproduce the behavior
  1. Enable the fail closed firewall mechanism in Whonix-Gateway (sys-whonix). [2]
  2. Later on when a sdwdate package upgrade becomes available, networking is no longer functional after installation.
Expected behavior An upgrade of the sdwdate package should not break networking.
Actual behavior An upgrade of the sdwdate package breaks networking.
Context Running standard ("everyday") upgrade instructions.
Relevant Documentation that was consulted See below.
Any related, non-duplicate issues (bugs)archive.org None, but these resources are directly relevant:

A detailed answer to a reported issue is more likely if:

  1. Reporters exert more effort, provide detailed analysis, perform multiple web searches, and read the source code beforehand; or
  2. The reporter is a Whonix contributor or developer.

Generic Bug Reproduction[edit]

The following concepts and principles are related:

Issues unspecific to Whonix, in short, due to the organizational structure of Freedom Software, in most cases the only realistic way to resolve questions and issues is to reduce the complexity to as few components and to research upstream (origin) resources (documentation, forums, mailing lists) and to contact upstream if applicable. For that, it is highly useful to remove the complexity of Whonix. Rephrasing the question, removing the Whonix specific part of it, utilizing other resources might yield more information or better help. Therefore all topics which are unspecific to Whonix are redirected to upstream resources as per Self Support First Policy.

For issues specific to Whonix it is still highly useful to attempt to utilize the same concepts and principles as much as possible. To more colorfully explain this, an example will be used. A good example is issues with VirtualBox showing VERR_INVALID_HANDLEarchive.org. Whonix does not develop VirtualBox. Whonix source code does not contain textual string VERR_INVALID_HANDLE. (Kicksecure logo how to search the source code The Web Archive Onion Version ) The error message is generated by the VirtualBox source code and is not by the Whonix source code. The VirtualBox community and developers have more expertise in this area.

Even if the issue is only occurring inside Whonix, perhaps caused by Whonix integration source code, i.e. Whonix specific, useful things to research are:

  • How is this implemented in Whonix?
  • How to reproduce this independently of Whonix?
  • How to reproduce this in Debian bookworm?

Posting a link to this wiki chapter does not imply the issue should not be discussed. On the contrary, it is an invitation according to the The User Co-developer Concept to utilize upstream resources. If questions where asked, bug reports posted, helpful information or (partial) solution have been found, please consider editing the Whonix Documentation and/or providing a complete answer in the Whonix User Forums as a contribution to Whonix.

Software Development Cycle[edit]

Community Feedback[edit]

The Whonix project is highly receptive to genuine feedback and suggested improvements from users. Software projects flourish from community input and every suggestion is noted and considered.

The Whonix community is asked to remain patient. The development cycle involves a number of competing priorities and challenges which must be overcome to achieve ambitious roadmap goals. Further, there is also an existing backlog 1archive.org / backlog 2archive.org of unresolved bugs and feature requests to address. See also Policy Rationale.

If Whonix resources grow over time, development activity and responsiveness to user input might increase. See also Linus doesn't scale and Whonix social organization structure doesn't scale yet eitherarchive.org.

Often, proposed improvements or fixes to the Whonix platform are awaiting implementation due to differing developer priorities, limited human resources and/or the inordinate amount of time required to develop a particular feature or solution. In a minority of cases, the Whonix team is unsure how to resolve a bug or implement a specific change / feature. [3]

It is generally unhelpful to debate the priorities laid out in the future Whonix roadmap, as this diverts energy from core development. Some major suggestions might become available in the long-term or might never eventuate. See also Kicksecure logo Linux User Experience versus Commercial Operating Systems The Web Archive Onion Version to learn about organizational and funding issues in the Open Source ecosystem.

For some requests it might be possible to:


Volunteer contributions to Whonix are most welcome. All proposed patches are carefully reviewed and merged if appropriate. Volunteers with the requisite coding ability should refer to the current backlog 1archive.org / backlog 2archive.org and consult with developers before undertaking any significant body of work. See also Focus on low-effort maintainabilityarchive.org.

Old Stable Support Policy[edit]

It is not uncommon for Linux Distributions to support multiple release versions. [4] The popular Debian Linux distribution on which Whonix is based not only provides the stable, testing and unstable versions, but also maintains support for the old-stable version. The main reason is because it can take a long time for some organizations to plan, test and upgrade all computers when a new stable version is released. [5]

Supporting the old-stable version with continued security updates for a period of time provides flexibility when migrating to the stable version. However, even for distributions like Debian that have a large number of developers, it can be very difficult to support both the stable and old-stable versions. This is evident by the limited time that the old-stable version is supported after the new stable is released - currently around one year on average. [6]

Providing extended support for previous stable versions is preferred for both large and small projects alike, but this is infeasible for Whonix due to limited human resources. The reason is the vast majority of developer time must be focused on core components of the stable release version, otherwise providing support for both stable and old-stable would unduly stall its development. Therefore, without a significant increase in funding or manpower, the maintenance of two stable release versions is unlikely in the near or distant future.

Package Upgrade Policy[edit]

Tickets that have status resolved or implemented on the backlog 1archive.org / backlog 2archive.org are not automatically pushed to the stable (or even developer) APT repository of Whonix. Also referenced git commits are not intended to imply that.

  • Standard Package Migration (link):
    • Stable package upgrades take time in order to provide a Whonix Stable Version User Experience.
    • Packages are uploaded to the developers repository first. After developer testing, these are migrated to the testers repository for general testing. After that, these are migrated to the stable-proposed-updates repository. Eventually, packages are migrated to the stable repository
    • Standard Package Migration: package upload → developerstestersstable-proposed-updatesstable
  • Instant Package Migration (link):
    • In one of the following cases:
      • A) Annoying bugs, easy to fix bugs,and/or
      • B) If critical security security vulnerabilities are discovered.
    • Packages with very low probability of introducing system instability. (Such as for example sdwdate-gui)
    • Special purpose packages such as debug-miscarchive.org which are not installed by default.
    • Instant Package Migration: package upload → developers → all repositories (testers, stable-proposed-updates, stable)

Advanced users who do not wish to wait for package updates can of course manually apply fixes to the relevant package(s) before that time. [7] Often all that is required is opening the files which were changed in a git commit(s) with root rights and emulating what the git commit would have changed. Do not copy any + or - signs that only illustrate which lines where added / removed and are not part of the actual file change. Another option is to update the package from source code.

(Package Upgrade Policy Forum Discussionarchive.org)

Issue Labels[edit]

Forum Issue Tracker Labels[edit]

Table: Forum Issue Tracker Labels

Label Descriptor Description
open The issue is still in the backlog.
confirmed Developers or other community members were able to reproduce the issue.
diagnosed / undiagnosed Developers or other community members were able/unable to identify the cause of the issue.
won't fix This is an ambiguous label that will hopefully be avoided in future. This applies to any issue that could be theoretically fixed, but it was rejected because there was no obvious solution, it was deemed too expensive to fix (in time or resources), the fix would add too much complexity, or for other reasons. See this entryarchive.org for a rationale.
can't fix Similar to the entry above.
closed The issue was fixed, but the solution may not have been deployed yet.
implemented The issue was fixed, but the solution may not necessarily have been deployed. This is distinct from the closed label because code has been devised, but it may not have yet filtered through to the Whonix repositories (stable, stable-proposed-updates, testers or developers APT repositories).
patches welcome See source code contributions for further information.
unsupported The proposed use case is unsupported and no contributor is available or volunteering to provide Free Support for implementation. Contributions are welcome. Premium Support might also be available.
declined The feature request was declined. No contributions will be accepted and Premium Support is also unavailable.

Phabricator Issue Tracker Labels[edit]

Phabricator issue tracker labels can be interpreted as follows:

  • Reviewed: "Completed in the latest source code version of Whonix" (but not released). Further testing is required in the next Whonix developers-only or testers-only release.
  • Resolved: "Completed in the development version of Whonix".
  • There is no specific label to indicate status in the stable Whonix release.

Support Request Policy[edit]

Due to constraints,

In the past, Whonix developers provided answers to a wide range of reported oddities, such as console output messages that were difficult for users to understand. Unfortunately this level of attention is no longer possible, for reasons outlined in this chapter. Effective December 1, 2018, the policy concerning responses to support requests and concerns had changed.

Out of Scope Issues[edit]

For example, if a user reported that the following console message appeared during an update, Whonix developers would be unlikely to respond.

70 signatures not checked due to missing keys

The reason is because developers are aware this is not symptomatic of a technical problem, but rather a minor usability issue. In case of this example, if the user reporting the problem conducted simple Internet research, they would quickly realize the cause of the error is not Whonix-specific. [8]

As a reminder, most anomalies are generally harmless rather than an indication of a compromise:

If trivial changes are noticed on your system -- such as a duplicate desktop icon -- this is not evidence of a hack or leak. Similarly, if warning or error messages appear that are difficult to understand, in most cases there is no need for panic. If something unexpected occurs such as the appearance of a "htaccess file in home directory", or graphical glitches emerge in some programs, then it is more likely a harmless bug and/or usability issue rather than a compromise.

Furthermore, it is in most cases unhelpful for non-technical users to run arbitrary certification utilities and test websites. This is because non-technical users lack the ability to threat modelarchive.org, mental modelarchive.org, contextualize the meaning and impact of the test result let alone perform a system auditarchive.org.

It is unlikely that arbitrary utilities or test websites used without documentation on how to interpret the results would show something spectacular, previously unknown to developers, actionable. Examples for many false-positives and minor issues can be found for Browser Tests, Server / Website Tests, Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIG) and OpenSCAP security testarchive.org.

Policy Rationale[edit]

There are several reasons for this policy:

  • Developer Time:
    • Providing answers for each and every (duplicate) reported (non-)issue costs time, which could be otherwise dedicated to core development and the backlog 1archive.org / backlog 2archive.org of existing bugs.
    • To get an insight of the existing developer workload, see selection of Whonix project activities and maintenance tasks and Whonix Newsarchive.org.
    • Consider the following analogy. A popular speaker at a conference is approached by 500 people before their speech. Each individual requests a private discussion of only five minutes. The speaker made a rough calculation; ~500 people multiplied by five minutes equals 2,500 minutes or ~ 41 hours (nearly two days). Clearly it is infeasible for one speaker to accommodate everyone's request for a short discussion.
    • By comparison, generally the architects of complex structures like buildings or hardware (and a myriad of other professions) do not explain any technical details for free to the general public.
  • Personal Initiative: Whonix is Freedom Software (Why?), which means every aspect of the source code is available for review. This level of transparency allows those who spend enough time or monetary resources to analyze everything in detail. In the spirit of Freedom Software, Whonix is purposefully opposed to artificial boundaries which make analysis unnecessarily more difficult.
  • Feature Richness: Since Whonix is based on Debian there are thousands of software packages available for use, and not all oddities can be discussed or explained due to time constraints.
  • Usability Issues: In the main, most usability issues will remain out of scope for developer attention. The reason is two-fold: either they are outside the control of the Whonix project and/or it is not economically viable due to the very structure of Freedom Software development; see Linux User Experience versus Comparable Operating Systems for further information.
  • Legal Liability: Due to legal liability and time restraints few communications can flow through Whonix Website and Whonix Chat.
  • Self Support First Policy Rationale

There are several reasons for this wiki entry. First, a link can be posted whenever necessary, thereby saving developers significant time and effort in addressing issues that are out of scope or non-issues. This demonstrates acknowledgement of the report, but also signals it is not cannot be processed at this time. Secondly, answering with a link is better than a non-answer. A nil response makes it unclear if the report has been seen or whether project development is even active.

Users are welcome to report whatever they like, but it is strongly recommended to first search the forumsarchive.org and Internet as per The Self Support First Policy to see if it was already reported - this is often the case.

It is also absolutely crucial to subscribe to and read the latest Whonix news category 'important-news' to stay in touch with ongoing developments. This way users benefit from notifications concerning important security vulnerabilities, potential upgrade issues, common issues and improved releases which address identified issues, like those affecting the updater or other core elements. See Stay Tuned. Often issues which users are about the report are already mentioned there for example in the changelogs of release announcements.

Issue Tracker[edit]

Transition to Discourse Forums[edit]

In the recent past, all issues were posted to the legacy tracker application: Whonix phabricatorarchive.org. However, the decision has been made to migrate issue tracking to the Whonix discourse forumsarchive.org. [9] [10]

The links to the existing backlog of open issues (backlog 1) and the new discourse forums backlog location (backlog 2) are below.

backlog 1archive.org / backlog 2archive.org

Forum Tags[edit]

The goal of forum tags is to maximize the usefulness of the Whonix forums as a roadmap and issue tracker for project developers.

Previously there were no guidelines or rules on how to use discourse forum tags; anyone could create, add or change them. [11] Discourse forums tags can now only be changed by Whonix discourse moderators.

Search query examples:

You can create a comment in a separate post such as:

  • Please open.

  • Please close.

  • Please re-open.

  • Please add tag testers-wanted.

  • Please remove tag component_security.

If appropriate, the tag will be changed by a forum moderator. [12] Note that issue-related comments might be deleted if inappropriate, duplicated or for the sake of brevity in the discussion (like when the status update was not changed due to a mistake). Also, tags should not be appended to every discussion or question about the related subject. [13]

If a forum thread is not tagged with the current stable release of Whonix or the next Whonix release (whonix-15 and whonix-16 at the time of writing), then it is not on the roadmap. In this case the likelihood the issue will be resolved is lower, whether it is a feature implementation, research/task completion, or bug fix. Please refrain from debating issue priorities or the timeframe for implementation; see Community Feedback.

Qubes-Whonix specific issues[edit]

On the Qubes issue tracker there is a label C: Whonix which intents to list all Qubes-Whonix specific issues.

Potential search terms for the Qubes issue trackerarchive.org:

What does label C: Whonix mean?

Quotearchive.org Andrew David Wong, Community manager, documentation and website maintainer:

It means that the affected component (or one of the affected components) is Whonix. I'm not a Whonix dev, so when I apply this label, it is merely a first-pass, best-effort, provisional, initial triage organization attempt. I rely on you, the devs (both Whonix and non-Whonix), to inform the accurate updating of these labels, as you all are the only ones with the requisite expertise to make authoritative technical diagnoses (not me, not users). I welcome any feedback, guidance, or advice you may have about how the issue tracker can serve you better. Ultimately, it is a tool to support your work, and my aim is to maintain it for that primary purpose.


Linux User Experience versus Commercial Operating Systems[edit]


When newcomers interact with a Linux operating system like Whonix, they come with certain expectations in regards to their overall experience. For the majority, expectations are based on their familiarity with Windows or macOS, since they dominate the desktop and laptop markets. [14] These commercial platforms pre-install a wide variety of popular and fully-featured applications, while the graphical user interface (GUI) is easy to use and intuitive. As a consequence, the seamless integration of new system software packages is the rule rather than the exception.

Windows and macOS users are now accustomed to an integrated experience where "everything just works". Attempts to provide a comparable experience in Linux have proven to be very difficult and the problem seems insurmountable. Many find the Linux GUI difficult to use and counterintuitive. There are software applications that are similar in design to those found in Windows or macOS, but they often lack many of the same features [15] or do not fully integrate with other packages. For Linux beginners, it might be difficult to understand how applications with similar design goals can have vastly different cross-platform functionality. Only by comparing the structural differences between a typical corporate hierarchy and a Linux distribution's collaborative effort can the discrepancies be explained.

Linux Distributions vs. Commercial Operating Systems[edit]


The following table provides a simplified comparison of the major organizational structural differences. Quoted figures are accurate for the year 2020.

Table: Linux Distribution vs. Commercial Operating System

Linux Distributions Commercial Operating Systems
Software Based on packages from many independent projects which develop software according to their own design goals Centralized (in-house) development with unified design goals
Funding Sources Donations, volunteer payments, grants, corporate sponsorship, professional services Revenue from software licensing [16] [17]
Funding Amount Unprofitable, most are underfunded and depend on volunteers Profitable, billion dollar profits are the norm
Authority to Issue Directives None, can only ask third party projects nicely CEO issues directives
Human Resources Community-based volunteers (limited time and human resources) In Windows' case, over 163,000 employees [18]
Popularity ~ 1.85 per cent of the desktop operating system market [19] Windows: ~ 78 per cent of the desktop operating system market [19]

macOS: ~ 17 per cent of the desktop operating market [20]

User Experience Fragmented Unified

Software Comparison[edit]

As shown in the table above, Linux distributions are based on many third-party projects that develop software according to their own design goals. For instance, an application might be initially developed by a volunteer for Windows and optimized for that platform. Later on, another volunteer joins the project, forks the application, and ports it to the Linux platform. When these projects develop software, they do not necessarily prioritize the design goals to suit compatibility with Linux distributions.

Linux distributions can only pick software packages that are already available, meaning the selected packages might fall short of the design goals. Moreover, unlike a traditional company, distributions are not structured with a large number of paid employees. Neither do they have the authority to issue directives to third-party projects to make desirable software changes. If a distribution needs package changes from an independent project, there are a few options, but they all require time and patience: [21]

  • Try to understand the perspective of the third-party project.
  • Politely ask the project if they would be willing to make the changes.
  • Submit code that makes sense from their point of view.
  • Patch and/or fork their software.
  • Use an alternative package from a different project.

In contrast, commercial operating systems are based on software expressly designed to provide a fully-unified user experience. While Linux distributions rely on third-party packages, commercial platforms are developed in large companies with a strict corporate hierarchy. In these companies, the CEO can issue a directive to developers to make any change needed to improve the integrated experience. Any developer who lacks the necessary skills or refuses to make changes is likely to be terminated for non-compliance. The human resources department (representing the CEO) will not tolerate delays in software development, as it might threaten profits.

Funding Comparison[edit]

Linux distributions are based on Freedom Software which can be used freely by anyone. Without a software licensing fee, options to generate a reliable funding stream for development are severely limited. Unless funding is available to hire a large contingent of full-time employees, it is nearly impossible to provide a unified experience. Instead, distributions rely primarily on the goodwill of developers who volunteer their time to integrate and maintain software packages. Without a salary, the time developers can devote to the task is necessarily reduced. Although this problem is attributable to the restricted funding sources available, it has less impact for sizeable or popular distributions due to:

  • Donations or volunteer payment-based funding.
  • Professional services provided on a commercial basis such as technical support, training and consulting.
  • Developmental grants.
  • Corporate sponsorship.

On the other hand, proprietary operating systems like Windows are funded through the sale of software licenses and few barriers exist to funding growth. Licensing generates billions of dollars in revenue which is used to employ a large number of full-time developers. This, in turn, allows these employees to focus on developing the software packages from the ground up while remaining focused on the primary design goal: maintaining and improving the "Windows user experience" that the community has come to expect.


Based on the information presented above, it is unrealistic to expect any Linux distribution to provide a user experience identical to that of Windows or macOS. Linux has gradually improved the quality and consistency of the user experience on various devices, particularly for larger and more popular distributions like Debian, Fedora, and Ubuntu. However, it is impossible for most (if not all) distributions to replicate the quality found on commercial platforms. In the case of smaller distributions like Whonix, very limited human resources mean it is out of the question. Instead, developers must spend a large portion of their time on core functionality development.

One obvious impact is that Whonix developers have limited time to answer support requests. Therefore, it is recommended to follow the advice outlined in the Self Support First Policy chapter before asking for specific help. In addition, please document any steps that were used to solve problems in the forums and/or wiki, thereby supporting the co-developer concept which has been adopted by the Whonix project. [22]

On the upside, Linux distributions have unique advantages. Less bloatware and other anti-features are imposed on the user. Privacy is generally better protected. When Windows breaks, the recommendation is usually to "reinstall Windows" which is a non-solution. The underlying cause of the problem in many cases has not been identified, understood, or reported, hence it is likely to reoccur due to a lack of progress. The common experience of Windows users is the platform becomes slower over time.

When the support channels of commercial operating systems are utilized to report an issue, the support staff often provide inadequate responses. Issues may be ignored or reinterpreted as the fault of the end user. Issues are frequently not forwarded to developers and therefore never fixed. While it is difficult or near impossible to approach the developers of commercial operating systems, Freedom Software developers are generally accessible. In contrast to the open development principles adopted by Linux, the proprietary, closed-source nature of commercial operating systems hinders community efforts to resolve problems or make enhancements -- it is very difficult or impossible to perform the necessary analysis of internals and source code.


  1. This recommended format is taken directly from the Qubes OS bug trackerarchive.org; for an example, see this bugarchive.org.
  2. So that networking is blocked if sdwdate.service fails to load.
  3. Some of these relate to cross-platform problems which are not Whonix-specific.
  4. At the time of writing, Fedora supports 2 release versions - Fedora {31,32}; see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/releases/#Current-supported-releasesarchive.org
  5. https://wiki.debian.org/DebianOldStable/#FAQarchive.org
  6. https://www.debian.org/security/faq#lifespanarchive.org
  7. For example, the Whonix AppArmor profiles package is a prime candidate for manual fixes, as it frequently breaks Tor Browser functionality when later browser versions are released.
  8. For example, see: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/485349/installing-mysql-with-mysql-apt-config-missing-keysarchive.org
  9. https://forums.whonix.org/t/abolishing-whonix-phabricator-issue-tracker-moving-issue-tracking-to-forums-migrating-phabricator-whonix-org-to-forums-whonix-org/7112archive.org
  10. Reasons:
    • one less web application and account to maintain;
    • phabricator updates occasionally break functionality, such as the outbound mailer;
    • far more users sign up to the forums and wiki accounts, giving posted issues more visibility;
    • developer forum threads often duplicate existing phabricator tickets;
    • the relatively "small" number of open tickets at the time of writing (220) makes the (slow) migration to the forums feasible;
    • extraneous tickets can be closed during migration; and
    • forum search functions allow for multiple tags which all need to be matched at the same time.
  11. Previously it did not make sense to have a testers-wanted tagarchive.org since there were around 50 requests for testing that were mostly obsolete. Therefore, forum threads listed under that forum tag were minimized to reflect up-to-date contents where testing would be useful.
  12. This is restricted to forum moderators because discourse does not have a feature to view tag changesarchive.org.
  13. Because adding tags to everything related does not improve anything. All keywords can still be found through internal and/or external search engines.
  14. Around 95 per cent combined.
  15. Like Skype.
  16. For example, recent Windows earnings can be found herearchive.org.
  17. Most desktop computers sold worldwide come with Windows pre-installed, generating significant revenue from licensing.
  18. Microsoft Corporation: employee count from 2005 onward (in 1,000s)archive.org
  19. https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/archive.org
  20. If options or features require a substantial time investment, it may be infeasible for a distribution with limited resources to implement the desired changes.
  21. It is possible to contribute in a number of ways, such as by helping to answer questions in the forums.

We believe security software like Whonix needs to remain open source and independent. Would you help sustain and grow the project? Learn more about our 12 year success story and maybe DONATE!