# Abolish irrelevant to privacy requirements

**URL:** https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/abolish-irrelevant-to-privacy-requirements/36225
**Category:** Site Development
**Created:** 2026-03-12T01:17:39Z
**Posts:** 16
**Showing post:** 1 of 16

## Post 1 by @byte — 2026-03-12T01:17:39Z

As noted here

> [@LibreWolf (Firefox-Based Browser)](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/librewolf-firefox-based-browser/148/393):
>
> So I have read everything again and I have more thoughts, but right out of the gate, one of our minimum requirements is: Must be available on Linux, macOS, and Windows. I would argue that [this…](https://librewolf.net/docs/faq/#why-is-librewolf-marked-as-broken) This happens because we do not notarize the macOS version of the browser: we don’t have a paid Apple Developer license and we don’t want to support this signing mechanism …means Librewolf does not meet this criteria, which has been an [issue noted by the community](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/librewolf-firefox-based-browser/148/79) here since 2023. I note that Libr…

There is a requirement:

> Must be available on Linux, macOS, and Windows.

I am suggesting to remove this requirement.

Read my quote:

> PG should focus on what we do best: privacy!
> 
> Not distribution. Not cross-platform. This can be noted in guide separately.
> 
> If tool is good, users who want privacy will find and install it themselves.
> 
> This requirement is ridiculous. Most of devs of best projects are non-profit hobby ones, so they don’t have money to pay evil corps.
> 
> And if Mac requirement is partially explainable, microslop? Seriously?
> 
> When shitdows ever was about privacy? Telemetry is privacy? Or maybe AI shit and ads is privacy?

So ultimately my suggestion: remove this requirement, if tool unavailable on some platforms put a notice with tool, because we are loosing now too many good utils (see LibreWolf)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.privacyguides.net/t/abolish-irrelevant-to-privacy-requirements/36225)._