Why don’t we all touch base to see where exactly we are now at, taking into account the past few discussions. It’s been a very messy thread. (I wish I could make this a wiki reply so that others can edit it accordingly. I may unfortunately get some things wrong.) I will use this reply from @SYST3M_D3STR0YER as a starting point. Here are the original objections they highlighted in that reply, which I will now characterize as discussion points taking into account what was previously discussed as best I can:
- “LibreWolf receives security fixes slower than FireFox”
- Discussion:
- We’ve established earlier that comparing the rate of security fixes to that of Mullvad Browser’s was not well founded: Mullvad Browser being late on security fixes is an issue, but it serves a wholly different purpose from Librewolf and the value it brings to browsing (namely Tor-like fingerprinting protections but with better website compatibility) outweighs it
- Librewolf, on the other hand, must be compared to Firefox and/or Brave, if anything; comparisons to Mullvad Browser are therefore off the agenda
- The slow rate of security fixes that Librewolf has must be weighed with the value it brings compared to Firefox/Brave
- If you want to discuss this point, you must explain why the late security patches are not an issue without appealing to that of Mullvad Browser’s
- (Side note: @SYST3M_D3STR0YER said, “[T]he security fix delay seems not to be relevant (that’s the decision of the Privacy Guides-Team, and not mine”)
- Can we link the reply/source to where the team says? I haven’t seen it.
- (Side note: @SYST3M_D3STR0YER said, “[T]he security fix delay seems not to be relevant (that’s the decision of the Privacy Guides-Team, and not mine”)
- Discussion:
- “LibreWolf doesn’t offer anything that FireFox can’t do”
- Discussion:
- This is directly related to the discussion above: the value that Librewolf brings compared to Firefox/Brave is relevant precisely because it is necessary to outweigh the slow rate of security fixes Librewolf has
- If you want to discuss this point, you therefore need to explain not just what Librewolf offers that Firefox/Brave does not, but also how their offerings directly outweigh their slow security updates
- Discussion:
“LibreWolf doesn’t offer anything that MullvadBrowser can’t do / MullvadBrowser is LibreWolf, just better”- No longer on the discussion agenda:
- Librewolf must be compared to Firefox and/or Brave, not Mullvad Browser
- No longer on the discussion agenda:
“LibreWolf doesn’t have automatic updates”- No longer on the discussion agenda:
- There are now automatic updates
- No longer on the discussion agenda:
- “LibreWolf has no use case, in either way you wouldn’t use LibreWolf”
- Discussion:
- This discussion point will be written differently from the 1 and 2, since it is still being discussed currently; I will therefore highlight the relevant points of that current discussion below:
- Claim: @eylin says that Librewolf is more user-friendly and requires less technical know-how than Arkenfox. The intended audience for Librewolf is “less-technical” people.
- Response: @ImTooPhaT and @any1 says that if being user-friendly is a factor, then Brave is the solution. It serves the same intended audience. Additionally, it is more user-friendly than Librewolf.
- Claim: @SYST3M_D3STR0YER says that the intended audience is actually “technical” people who want convenience instead of maintaining Arkenfox.
- Response: @any1 says that if the audience is for “technical” people, then that audience can and should go to Arkenfox. Convenience should not be a factor.
- Claim: @eylin says that Librewolf is more user-friendly and requires less technical know-how than Arkenfox. The intended audience for Librewolf is “less-technical” people.
- This discussion point will be written differently from the 1 and 2, since it is still being discussed currently; I will therefore highlight the relevant points of that current discussion below:
- Discussion: