Trivalent (secureblue Web Browser)

[anonymous484]

adding this link for more context.

Brave vs Trivalent Security

We’re 99% done moving the trivalent chunks of our selinux policy to an RPM (we just have to ship it), so you’ll be able to use (albeit unsupported) Trivalent confined by selinux on Fedora by swapping Fedora’s selinux policy for ours: Outside of systems where that’s possible (Fedora-based), in theory Trivalent could still be a good option, but in practice there are no well-maintained repackages that I’m aware of. The AUR package for example is constantly out of date even on zero-days. Plus you…

---

@anon57862721

I think a browser should only be considered if it at-least supports one of the mainstream desktop OSs if not has support for all desktop OSs.

Not relevant right now. Create a criteria change and get it approved. This is how these discussions end up being framed around criteria that does not currently exist. See all the 1Password threads for examples.

EDIT:

Trivalent (secureblue Web Browser)

From PG’s minimum requirements for desktop browser recommendations: Must be available on Linux, macOS, and Windows. As per the official Trivalent repo: Official support is only provided via secureblue Trivalent therefore fails to meet the minimum requirements for desktop browser recommendations, as of 9 Dec 2025. To be considered, either (1) broad support for Mac & Windows needs to be added, or (2) the PG desktop browser requirements need to be modified to allow browsers that are not ava…

---

@anon57862721

Seeing that it is intended for use in secureblue only, should it really be considered for addition here?

I think if PG is going to recommend SecureBlue or GrapheneOS, its only logical for PG to also recommend the browsers, otherwise it causes unnecessary confusion for users as to why PG is telling them to use something else.