8 ms·

> Helium is based on Chromium > Best privacy by default Sorry, pass... Even with un-googled Chromium I do not think these statements are self-consistent. We

• vasco 1y ago
  How is firefox legitimate competition when they are basically financed by Google?
  • scbzzzzz 1y ago
    You need to look at history. In early 90s why did Microsoft invest in apple when it is its competitors. Investment doesn't mean they are medling into mozilla business. For companies like google (present) or Microsoft in 90's. It is better to have a crippled competitor than no competitor. No competitor attracts government agencies for monopoly which is worse.
    • baruz 1y ago
      In the 1990s Microsoft “invested” in Apple because Steve Jobs allowed them to save face by giving them the option to settle their part of Apple v San Francisco Canyon Co by calling part of it—$150 M—a stock purchase that only lasted a few years. I do not know how much the total cash settlement from Microsoft was, but industry rumors went up to $1B.
      • pjmlp 1y ago
        The first time yes, the last time, there would be no Apple Silicon to talk about today.
  • tclover 1y ago
    Mozilla is fine taking money from Google, because it keeps "competition" alive otherwise Google would face antitrust lawsuits for running a monopoly.
    • fumar 1y ago
      Isn’t Safari 30% of browser share in the US?
      • godelski 1y ago
        What's your point? Even 3 players is too few.
      • swiftcoder 1y ago
        Only due to iOS, which isn't necessarily enough to stave off monopoly complaints across other platforms
  • FlyingSnake 1y ago
    Because it's the only other browser engine that's currently available in the market.
    • ssl-3 1y ago
      Indeed. It is important to try to avoid letting perfection be the enemy of good. Firefox is at least something that is distinct from WebKit or Chromium (which is itself based on a fork of WebKit). That's good. It's not perfect, in part because deals with Google pay for most of it, but it is still good despite its imperfect status.
    • esskay 1y ago
      Which sucks because it's not exactly fantastic as a competitor. There's still very, very noticeable performance differences and render speed/pattern differences that after you've been using a chromium based browser for a long time give firefox a feeling of being slow (it's not, it is absolutely just a perception thing, but it's enough to put you off using it)
  • rkomorn 1y ago
    Maybe it's also the other way around: if Firefox was legitimate competition, Google wouldn't "fund" them (quotes because really, google is also just buying user traffic with their investment). Is Google actively sabotaging Mozilla or is Mozilla a genuine competitor that just hasn't figured out how to build a browser that'll actually challenge Chrome (and Chromiumy browsers) beyond ideologist users? I say it's the latter. Google's money doesn't actually negatively impact Firefox's competitiveness.
    • theK 1y ago
      I dont see how the competitiveness argument can still stand. I've been using both browsers for the better part of two decades now and chrome/chromium never was the better product. Sure it had slightly better devtools for a while but nowadays it is very difficult to argue either way. Performance was rubbish on both ends for years in a row, right now both seem to do fine. Firefox has sync, a significantly better product than whatever google comes up with every two years. So yeah, I think Mozilla has a good enough product to challenge chrome. What they don't have is comparable traffic to their site. Oh and of course focus. Mozilla has lacked focus for almost a decade now with all the random products and initiatives they launch.
      • rkomorn 1y ago
        As someone who almost compulsively changes browsers every so often with the mistaken belief that "there's gotta be something better" and has swung by Firefox on multiple occasions, it has never offered me any compelling reason to stick with it beyond not being Chrome. Zen came close, but also didn't stick. Containers seemed nice at first but my personal usage of them devolved into an over abundance of containers to isolate everything from one another (my fault, though). On the other hand, I've had various small nits here and there that always eventually push me back towards a chromium browser. But hey, I'm a believer in not holding on to my decisions so long that they become assumptions, so off I go to install Firefox and give it a 4th whirl since 2010.
        • dotancohen 1y ago
  • godelski 1y ago
    Allow me to rephrase my earlier choice Chromium: Entirely dependent on Google, a $3T company who's entire business model relies upon invading your privacy and currently has a >70% global share of browsers WebKit: A closed source browser with ~18% of browser share and run by a nearly $4T company who forces all browsers on their mobile devices to be reskinned versions of their browser and probably wants to do the same on their other devices Gecko: An open source browser with ~4% of the browser share, run by a non-profit with a mission of to preserve privacy but is struggling to find funding. All three choices suck. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. But there's only one option on here that isn't trying to royally fuck everyone over and actually cares about the very service we're arguing over. So what... we're going to let the internet get screwed because a bunch of dudes making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year can't toss some beer money over to the little guy? You paint this as a hopeless picture, but seriously, have you considered donating? Every time I see these types of threads I see comments like > I would happily pay a small monthly subscription fee for a browser if it has strong legally protected privacy guarantees.[0] Seriously, are we all that greedy and myopic? They're a non-profit. You know tons of companies, such as Google and every other big tech company, have some donation matching system. Google pays the Mozilla Foundation about half a billion a year to make Google the default search engine. How is the fact that they are throwing such massive amounts of money not a concerning thing? Yet FF has enough users that we could give them an extra 40% revenue if we tossed them $5 PER YEAR. That's it. Do you really think your browser provides to you less value than your Netflix (160%/360%/500% more expensive) or Spotify (240% more expensive) account? Seriously? If literally 30% of FF users gave to Mozilla what they are willing to give to Spotify, then the problem is solved. Or 15% of users did it through their company's matching program. If instead of discouraging people, you got more people to convert then the percentage of necessary contributors decreases! It's even tax fucking deductible so it isn't even that <$5/yr... [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45369141 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45369141
    • john01dav 1y ago
      You can't donate to Firefox. You can donate to Mozilla, but that money doesn't go to Firefox.
• chneu 1y ago
  Security isn't just about your data. It's about the security of an open web. Having one rendering engine that controls everything is not secure.
  • photomatt 1y ago
    It's actually the beauty of open source that we can align on a few primitives that are reusable in several different contexts to build radically different product experiences and world views. If you think of the phylogenetic tree of software this is exactly what you want to happen.
  • xpe 1y ago
    “Resilience” conveys your meaning better than “security”, and it calls to mind more relevant interventions.
  • norskeld 1y ago
    While I agree that monopolies suck, I _absolutely hate_ having to waste my time adjusting styles and writing workaround code just to make everything look and work consistently in a multitude of browsers. This is one of the reasons — among a hundred others — that I grew to somewhat hate front-end, doubly so with the rise of mobile devices. And the more rendering engines we have, the more developers will have to fight frustrating battles with inconsistencies and quirks.
    • xpe 1y ago
      Indeed front-end development in software can be painful. Much of the cruft can be attributed to computing's byzantine history of incremental experimentation. You might take some comfort in knowing that the biological analogue is vastly more complicated: the transformation of genotype to phenotype. Trying to figure out the evolutionary pressures and various mutational accidents that drove particular biological changes feels way harder than trying to figure out WTF Project X was thinking when they decided to pivot from being a social network for dog walkers to a low-latency query planner for a database no one has heard of.
• JoshTriplett 1y ago
  > So what, our choices are Firefox (Gecko), Don't forget Servo. People are actively working on it, and it could use more help.
  • indy 1y ago
    Hopefully the Ladybird browser will become a viable choice soon
    • typpilol 1y ago
      I think we're many years off it even being viable for most people
      • nicce 1y ago
        They haven’t solved security yet. They are doomed to repeat Firefox/Chrome issues until they start using that Swift.
        • mi_lk 1y ago
          what's Swift's role in security?
          • fhd2 1y ago
            I'm glad you asked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SwiftOnSecurity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SwiftOnSecurity
          • nicce 1y ago
            Memory safety. A more serious reply, discussed last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41208836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41208836 I think the main repo does not have Swift yet.
    • Zardoz84 1y ago
      I hope that not. Or at least, get out of the control of the controversial person behind it. If I would put all the eggs on a basket, I will prefer Servo.
• that_guy_iain 1y ago
  > Even with un-googled Chromium I do not think these statements are self-consistent. We need browsers that do not allow Google to control the ecosystem. We need legitimate competition. If you fork Chromium, Google doesn't control the ecosystem, it controls a large part of it. But you're able to build on top of that ecosystem. So you can have the best of both worlds, all the extensions and ecosystem from Chrome but with more. That is called true competition. I also suspect Brave would take offense to your claim you can't have privacy on a Chromium fork.
  • acka 1y ago
    While I appreciate your perspective, the widespread adoption of Google Chrome has presented challenges. The implementation of Manifest V3 demonstrates Google's significant influence over extension developers, requiring adherence to increasingly restrictive APIs or facing limited visibility within less popular browsers.
    • that_guy_iain 1y ago
      Extension developers are not forced to adhere to anything from Google to build compatible extensions that work on forks such as Brave. If they want to be in the Google ecosystem, sure, but as I pointed out, you can build your own ecosystem on top of it. If you build on top of it, you're not forced and unable to extend the ecosystem.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• pjmlp 1y ago
  Yeah, everyone is doing their little contribution to help Google take over the Web and turn it into ChromeOS Platform. Why did we ever bothered with the IE lawsuit, for a newer generation to give the Web on a plate to Google?
  • rjh29 1y ago
    Because at the time IE6 was a terrible browser with poor standards support, while Chrome is an excellent browser with leading standards support. It is a gilded cage.
    • modo_mario 1y ago
      Isn't part of the issue that they have a big hand in defining the standards?
      • glenstein 1y ago
        Right, and I would add: normalizing an accelerated rate of new standards adoption and vast codebases that only they can sustain.
    • lenkite 1y ago
      It is nice when you have replaced the original standard committee with your own committee. You can always have "leading standards support". MS was not smart enough to do this. Google was smarter.
    • Calavar 1y ago
      > Chrome is an excellent browser with leading standards support. Google learned it can be "standards compliant" if it submits a draft spec to WHATWG/W3C, and while the comment and revision process is still ongoing, roll out those features in Chrome and start using them in YouTube, Gmail, Google docs, and AMP. Now Firefox and Safari are forced to implement those draft specs as well or users will leave in droves because Google websites are broken. Soon enough, Google's draft spec is standardized with minimal revisions because it's already out there in the wild. The debate, revision, and multistakeholder aspects of the standards process have been effectively bypassed, a la IE6 and ActiveX, but Chrome can claim to be on the cutting edge of standards compliance. This is a case of Goodharts's law.
• NaomiLehman 1y ago
  For me, the fact that a browser is based on Chromium is a deal breaker when compared to CPU/RAM usage of Safari on Mac OS. When I open the some JS heavy tabs like Notion, AIstudio.google.com, email, the difference is huge. Orion is the only alternative, because as you said, it's built on WebKit, but I had trouble it working with extensions that I need for my work.
• BatteryMountain 1y ago
  Literally the first thing I looked for...(if it is based on chromium). When can we get a new kind of browser that doesn't use html/css/js...? Build one from scratch with a common design language (but modifiable by the user)
  • PUSH_AX 1y ago
    This is a gargantuan task, I can’t even articulate how much work this would be.
    • teekert 1y ago
      Make it markdown based. It'll be like the web once was... Just documents linking to other documents, with images and videos. We just pretend web 2.0 never happened. Everybody can write markdown so we don't even need web2.0.
      • chiffaa 1y ago
        You might wanna look into Gopher and Gemini protocols, as they seem to be pretty much exactly that
        • 1313ed01 1y ago
          Gemini is probably not exactly what GP wished for, but it has something resembling a critical mass of users and while I do not think the text format (gemtext, i.e. gmi) is perfect I find it good enough for what it does. I even use gemtext now and then offline just as an even simpler markdown. Since it has so few features it is trivial to convert gmi to markdown or to any other format without losing anything. It works as a lowest common markup language for when something that minimal is enough.
      • xigoi 1y ago
        Can we please not switch to a format which is simultaneously more complex and less capable than HTML?
    • 1y ago
• user3939382 1y ago
  The answer is to get rid of the web, JS, and HTTP. I’m working on it.
  • 0xEF 1y ago
    Okay, what's the plan?
    • boobsbr 1y ago
      Gopher and Finger.
      • dotancohen 1y ago
        [flagged]
    • user3939382 1y ago
      I’ll do a show HN if I can actually get it working. Best case scenario will mean not only goodbye to the browser but the app stores as well.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    • wffurr 1y ago
      Gemini protocol: https://geminiprotocol.net/ https://geminiprotocol.net/. Harder to search up these days due to Google using the brand too.
      • xigoi 1y ago
        Gemini is way too simplistic. You can’t even white math articles in it.
        • user3939382 1y ago
          They do however have the right idea. Document sharing and applications are completely different things that require different architectures. I like their start with Gemini though I’d bring over non video images and CSS3, html5 tags that make html more intuitive. I’d just strip the browser way way down back basically to what it was with some enhancements and lessons learned. The application part is much more complex though I’m working on it and will share my research if when ready.
• anon1395 1y ago
  Safari should be on Windows. I don't care what CSS standards it has, it needs to give Chrome and Firefox some competition
  • pmontra 1y ago
    It used to be there, 2007-2012 https://archive.org/details/safari-5.1.7-windows https://archive.org/details/safari-5.1.7-windows I found an announcement in Italian on Apple website. It's from June 2007 https://www.apple.com/it/newsroom/2007/06/11Apple-Introduces-Safari-for-Windows/ https://www.apple.com/it/newsroom/2007/06/11Apple-Introduces... The original plan with the iPhone was to have web apps, not native apps. That's why they needed to run the rendering engine of the iPhone on Windows. Then they went native and Mac only with the dev environment. I don't think that Apple would earn one single dollar by porting Safari to Windows again.
  • NoGravitas 1y ago
    You used to be able to get Epiphany preview on Windows, for quite a long time after you could get Safari on Windows. Doesn't seem to be the case anymore, though.
  • password4321 1y ago
    Here are the Windows WebKit builds: https://build.webkit.org/#/builders/1192 https://build.webkit.org/#/builders/1192 "MiniBrowser" opened after installing AppleMobileDeviceSupport64 from iTunes and VC_redist.x64, and it appeared to be making network requests, but it never rendered any web content I could see.
    • igrunert 1y ago
      The layout tests on Windows are failing at the moment due to a regression introduced a few days ago (likely https://commits.webkit.org/301043@main https://commits.webkit.org/301043@main). The easiest way to run WebKit on Windows is via Playwright.
• saubeidl 1y ago
  Zen is quite nice if you like something based on Firefox, but with a stronger UX focus!
• SuperHeavy256 1y ago
  A browser being based on Chromium has nothing to do with how private it is. Yes you are furthering an internet monopoly by using chromium. But there is noncorrelation between being based of Chromium and Privacy.
  • yupyupyups 1y ago
    Yes it has, unless they plan to do significant changes to how the relevant JS APIs function, which is usually prohibitively expensive to maintain. Standard Chromium allows websites to fetch a lot of fingerprintable bits, this is even true for Brave. Tracking protection on Chromium is a joke. Firefox on the other hand is better in this respect and even has a setting explicitly for resisting fingerprinting.
    • fastball 1y ago
      Last time I checked, Brave was actually the best-in-class for resisting fingerprinting.
      • yupyupyups 1y ago
        Calling Brave "best-in-class for resisting fingerprinting" is quite bold. Especially when it's so easily disproven. Try some good fingerprint testing sites on Brave and see what comes up (those results alone should chock you). Then try the same sites on Firefox with privacy.resistFingerprinting=true. Unless some truly revolutionary initiatives have been taken at Brave since last I checked, you will see Firefox do A LOT better than Brave. Brave suck at resisting fingerprinting. It may be better than other Chromium-based browsers, but it's still pathetic.
        • fastball 1y ago
          > Try some good fingerprint testing sites on Brave Um. Have you tried this? Because obviously based on my comment I've done this before (and I've of course included Firefox). I just did this again and sites tell me Brave has a randomized fingerprint. Firefox's is "unique". A specific example: the EFF Cover Your Tracks website[1] said that both browsers convey 18.21 bits of identifying information. Additionally, if you need to enable a certain setting for best performance, that browser is obviously worse for purpose, given that the vast majority of people don't change settings. [1] https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/ https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
• d3w1tt 1y ago
  [dead]
• vogu66 1y ago
  There's Palemoon's Goanna, also
  • efreak 1y ago
    Isn't Goanna unmaintainable and full of potential vulnerabilities?
• ttoinou 1y ago
  I love Chromium ! It's the fastest browser implementation out there, and the best to handle hundreds of tabs in the background. What if, everyone was going on a fork of ungoogled chromium, there would be interest into alternative browsers to Chrome and money invested there, and at some point making forks of Chromium separated from Google might make sense business wise. So, we can impact the future of browsers by using chromium based browsers
• ho_schi 1y ago
  Epiphany (WebKitGtk) on Linux, native Gtk-UI :) I'm posting right now with it here.
• gregorvand 1y ago
  Pass, sure, but vs what currently? Helium does not have to be the destination. But it is a good step when Chromium is the standard (try using Safari and quickly websites seem uncharacteristically janky)
• uyzstvqs 1y ago
  Yet I pick a Chromium based browser because Firefox is awfully anti-user. I still can't load extensions that are not Mozilla-approved, a major deal breaker for me. Then there's the "news" (ragebait slop) on the new tab screen by default, almost like I'm using MS Edge, and also the many sponsored & "suggested" (read: sponsored) links by default in new tab and the address bar as well. The only acceptable Gecko-based browser I know of right now is Zen, which is great but still in beta. And Tor & Mullvad Browser are good for private one-time sessions. We need competition for a free and open internet, I fully agree. Mozilla is far from a decent champion for that cause. I'm far more excited at what Ladybird has to offer.
  • prettymuchnoone 1y ago
    by "Mozilla approved" do you mean that it has to come from the official add-on store? because in my experience, it doesn't--I've installed a couple of extensions manually by just dragging the .xpi into the window.
    • uyzstvqs 1y ago
      Extensions in Firefox are required to be signed by Mozilla. If you make your own build of an open-source extension, it will not load. The setting to disable this check only works in Developer Edition, ESR and Nightly builds. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firefox https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/add-on-signing-in-firef...
      • Dylan16807 1y ago
        Installing one of those builds is a deal breaker?
      • rpdillon 1y ago
        Installing the developer edition seems like the move.
        • efreak 1y ago
• lloydatkinson 1y ago
  Reminds me of DuckDuckGo's "privacy" browser that is again just a Chrome/WebView wrapper.
• alex1138 1y ago
  Also it's worth mentioning that GNU does have their own flavor of Firefox, if that's your cup of tea
• deskamess 1y ago
  I use FF... but they are financially tied to Google and even technically they are waiting on Google to implement JPEG-XL instead of moving forward themselves. Why not do some work/spend some money to borrow Safari's implementation or audit and augment a third party library? Instead of waiting on Google... esp on this matter where you could be waiting for a long time.
• yreg 1y ago
  Naive question — why is everyone building chromium-based browsers as opposed to using Gecko? Is it difficult to integrate?
  • jmm5 1y ago
    Most of these chromium-based browsers are intended to address privacy concerns. Firefox (mostly) respects your privacy. There are also sometimes compatibility issues with Firefox because web developers only test on chromium and webkit. Anyone opinionated enough to put up with that is just going to use Firefox.
    • yreg 1y ago
      >intended to address privacy concerns Primarily probably yes, but I think for example Brave or Arc Browser teams also had ideas for their own browser features instead of "just" making a more degoogled Chromium. Helium as well, I suppose, otherwise what's the point?
  • mosburger 1y ago
    That's my (admittedly extremely limited) understanding. The Mozilla/Firefox people de-prioritized making Gecko a separate linkable library years ago, and it's no longer a straightforward thing to do. Which is a real bummer.
  • kwanbix 1y ago
    There are many Gecko browsers. Floorp, Waterfox are running on my machine for example.
• EasyMark 1y ago
  I like zen for this, if you like a pretty, no-nonsense browser. If you like a few more features and a web panel and some GUI tweakery floorp is good.
• ikari_pl 1y ago
  I came here to leave this comment exactly. I stopped reading the page after "based on Chromium". Thank you.
• lynndotpy 1y ago
  I agree with you here. I want a viable non-Chromium browser. But even if that existed, I also think a practical Chromium browser is important to have access to. I'm a developer and I use the web, so sometimes I just need Chromium. I think that will continue to be necessary for at least 10 years. And I think the landscape of Chromium browsers is very bad. As a minimum, I want adblocking, low- or no-telemetry, timely security updates, no forced arbitration clause in its ToS, and support across platforms. Right now, I think that makes Brave the best Chromium browser. That is not an accolade, I deeply dislike Brave, for dozens of reasons. It's just the best of a bad bunch. (But credit where it's due, I do very much like its "Shields" control.) I only learned about Helium from this thread, but it checks almost all of my boxes. I was really excited to see a new browser that hits my checkboxes... But it's MacOS only :( Alas
  • hedora 1y ago
    What is your definition of “viable”? Plenty of people own iPhones, which is locked down to webkit. Similarly, firefox is fine. I switch between it chromium and safari for dev work, and (unless you go out of your way to find a counterexample) they’re completely interchangeable in terms of compatibility and real-world performance. Firefox runs fine on android, so there’s not even a platform where chrome is the only choice (other than chromebooks).
    • lynndotpy 1y ago
      I know this is not typical, but I just run into breaking bugs on Firefox on every platform which prevent me from using Firefox (except Intel MacOS, which I have not used, and Windows, which I haven't used in a few years.) For Safari, the problem for most platforms is that it doesn't run on most platforms. It doesn't really count to me if I can't use it on my computers. (Caveat that there are non-Safari webkit browsers, but they're not very good.)
  • lelanthran 1y ago
    > I agree with you here. I want a viable non-Chromium browser. It doesn't look like you do. Firefox has worked for me across 7 different employers in the last 15 years with no problems, and yet you haven't switched to it. Actions speak louder than words. There is a viable alternative. You aren't using it.
• 0_gravitas 1y ago
  Orion as well (by the Kagi people), not available on linux yet but there is a roadmap: web-kit based.
  • hedora 1y ago
    I wish they’d open source their work. (Sent from orion on ios, with firefox’s ublock origin, etc enabled)
  • honeybadger1 1y ago
    I liked it when I used macOS but now I work primarily in a windows/fedora environment.
• guywithahat 1y ago
  You say this like chromium is not the best browser experience we have. There used to be a point where everyone had to build websites for 5 different web engines, each of which had their own quirks. Now that we just build for one it's so much easier, and while chromium still does a great job I'm not sure why we'd want to create another, likely worse, engine and browser.
• FuriouslyAdrift 1y ago
  Palemoon still exists... https://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.palemoon.org/
• andai 1y ago
  Firefox gets most of its funding from Google. They are Google's antitrust lawsuit insurance. Which is unfortunate, or fortunate, depending on how you look at the situation.
  • 6c696e7578 1y ago
    They do, whilst they have a minor user base. If they become the majority they'll lose funding. So from Mozilla's point of view, they must be continually worse alternative. They'd shoot themselves in the foot if they looked like the better alternative.
• blicsd 1y ago
  holy soy
• penchant 1y ago
  The thing is, Gecko is really insecure when compared to Chromium. Its sandboxing is asinine. Additionally, due to lack of WebView implementation, on mobile you have to use Chromium either way, leaving you with two completely separate attack surfaces. Quoting GrapheneOS developers[1]: > Avoid Gecko-based browsers like Firefox as they're currently much more vulnerable to exploitation and inherently add a huge amount of attack surface. Gecko doesn't have a WebView implementation (GeckoView is not a WebView implementation), so it has to be used alongside the Chromium-based WebView rather than instead of Chromium, which means having the remote attack surface of two separate browser engines instead of only one. Firefox / Gecko also bypass or cripple a fair bit of the upstream and GrapheneOS hardening work for apps. Worst of all, Firefox does not have internal sandboxing on Android. This is despite the fact that Chromium semantic sandbox layer on Android is implemented via the OS isolatedProcess feature, which is a very easy to use boolean property for app service processes to provide strong isolation with only the ability to communicate with the app running them via the standard service API. Even in the desktop version, Firefox's sandbox is still substantially weaker (especially on Linux) and lacks full support for isolating sites from each other rather than only containing content as a whole. The sandbox has been gradually improving on the desktop but it isn't happening for their Android browser yet. IronFox (an FF fork) developers[2]: > While we do as much as possible to improve the situation, it should be noted that Firefox-based web browsers, including IronFox, have security deficiencies when compared to Chromium. This is especially notable on Android. [1] https://grapheneos.org/usage#web-browsing https://grapheneos.org/usage#web-browsing [2] https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/blob/dev/docs/Limitations.md https://gitlab.com/ironfox-oss/IronFox/-/blob/dev/docs/Limit... An in-depth examination of this topic and a plethora of other sources can also be found here: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.html https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/firefox-chromium.ht...