Continuing discussion from the Trivalent suggestion thread, specifically from this reply.
The question is should we remove this minimum requirement?
- Must be available on Linux, macOS, and Windows.
Is it arbitrary? Does it relate to privacy and/or security?
I think this post should have been made first before the Trivalent one because it was only natural for that thread to go off topic (from what it was meant to be). Though no offense to OP there.
But yes, good questions. Some people have already made comments there about this. Not sure if they’ll add the same here.
To me, this is a good requirement to have and like I said, Software on niche or esoteric platforms/OSs should not be the only qualifier to be evaluated for an official recommendation here.
Recommendations should be based on product quality, category, usability, etc. Of course it has to be related to privacy and security in that it should be a privacy or security first product because that’s what PG is about.
Funnily enough, the original post there was actually an off-topic reply in the Vanadium thread that was moved to its own post lol
Linking my relevant thoughts from the trivalent thread
I think we could move the criteria to best case instead of getting rid of it altogether. Or even just a prefers cross platform compatibility situation.
I would like to have the requirement at least be amended or have an exception for Linux particularly that the app/product in question be available to be used on not just one particular distro but any distro and DE you want. Software made for only one particular distro primarily should not be the only qualifier.
But I guess I’ll have to make another thread (though I don’t want to) with asking this particular change rather than what OP is asking.
I think this will come down to how you want to think about recommendations at large and why in that particular way. Don’t think there is a right or wrong way to go about it here.
What I am afraid about is making people not use Vanadium or Trivalent just because it is not recommended by us. That’s why I personally support at least a small addendum mentioning this issue.
Even if the vision of the browser requirement is to share cross-platform browsers, perhaps we can make it clear that these two options aren’t bad and to use discretion.
I feel I’d benefit by hearing more about this vision
If the stated goal of PG is “delivering the best digital privacy and consumer technology rights advice on the internet”, cross-platform compatibility isn’t an obvious, inherent prerequisite. But if it’s an emergent requirement from past discourse, that context may be valuable here
Also worth discussing: why does this vision only cover desktop browsers? Mobile browsers recommendations do not have the cross-platform compatibility requirement. Is there a historic reason for this asymmetry?
I’ll make sure to bring this up to the team members. Thanks for letting us know!
I personally was not involved when that decision was made. From my perspective, It could use a discussion on our end.
I always do my best to be on a multi-platform solution.
It’s not a lot of fun when you’re only using the Apple ecosystem!
It should at least work on a PG-recommended OS, e.g. Linux, in order to be recommended.
Trivalent is not even officially supported on Fedora. So I don’t see the point of recommending it in the browser section..Though we can recommend it to keep using it in the Trivalent section.
The browser section is made to offer private allternatives. The point is also to avoid vendor lock-in, which is why we (or I) don’t recommend Safari for example.