It’s nearly as accessible as Safari, which is only on iPhones and Macs. GrapheneOS can fit most of the usecases of both iPhones and Macs
1 Like
Are you implying Vanadium works on iOS?
You gotta be joking me right?
1 Like
I meant GOS works for both desktop and mobile use, essentially fulfilling the same functions as both an iPhone and a Mac. Safari is only on iPhone and Mac
1 Like
Ok I’ll give you that.
staff needs some real explaination here, why is Safari here and not Vanadium. I thought we’re recommending cross platform not agnostic ones.
1 Like
Being cross platform isn’t a requirement for the mobile browsers section, but I just wanted to address these replies:
Safari is similarly limited, and people who have Apple devices also already have Safari
2 Likes
The reason why Safari got recommended on iOS is rather special.
On iOS, any app that can browse the web is restricted to using an Apple-provided WebKit framework, so a browser like Brave does not use the Chromium engine like its counterparts on other operating systems.
Safari is not recommended as a desktop browser, only as a mobile browser because of this.
Shouldn’t this be recommended by now? Or at least have some sort of “solution” marked.
In my eyes it should be and it’s the only browser I use on my GOS. The GOS team make a very compelling argument for it: Usage guide | GrapheneOS
There was already a PR to get Vanadium in, but it was closed with “I don’t really see anyone pushing for this”, so I don’t know what’s going on now.
1 Like
It doesn’t really make sense to recommend it specifically for GOS. We try to make it as universal as possible.
3 Likes
Not sure I agree. The only recommended Android device is a Pixel and, the only recommended alternative distribution is GrapheneOS. Anyone following the recommendations is going to think they should be using Brave browser instead of Vanadium.
If PG is going to suggest (implicitly with their recommendations) that Android users get a Pixel and install GrapheneOS, the most logical thing to do is recommend Vanadium.
11 Likes
Yes and iOS and android have individual recommendations for mobile browsers, not sure why GOS should be any different especially when it’s the only recommended mobile OS.
2 Likes
I think making suggestions “as universal as possible” by ignoring the best browser for the recommended alternative distribution only hurts PGs credibility.
5 Likes
For a fingerprint perspective, it really isn’t. That being said, it could be explored. What need to be figured out is whether it can be FPed as Vanadium.
I would assume most browsers can, but it’s less of an issue when many people use it.
Also, I would need to see how well it protects against trackers. I know it use a URL blocklist, but I would assume it’s less aggressive than Brave because you can’t disable it.
For reliable fingerprint protection on mobile, the Tor Browser is the only option
6 Likes
“best” was probably the wrong word to us by me. Even GrapheneOS has said Brave is a decent alternative.
I understand what you are saying but considering fingerprint protection is not an actual criteria for mobile browsers I don’t think its relevant to whether the browser should be recommended or not.
2 Likes
Summarizing this thread:
I dont think anyone is arguing that Brave’s recommendation should be revisited, or that it should be considered a golden standard against all other browsers. So I’m inclined to disregard points that depend on comparisons to Brave
The main issues I see remaining with Vanadium:
- GrapheneOS exclusive
- Questionable fingerprint mitigation
As others have said, PG already recommends OS - specific browsers, in situations where using a particular browser on a particular system is the best option for privacy & security. GOS team recommends Vanadium on GOS for this reason. I feel a strong counterpoint is a prerequisite for this objection to carry weight. I have not yet seen any such points made
The latter is an interesting point. It’s worth mentioning that fingerprinting is not currently PG criteria for browser recommendations. There is an argument to be made that it should be, but that would require a defined methodology for assessing browser fingerprinting. I do not believe this has been standardized; I see different 3rd party tools recommended, some debates without definite conclusions. I struggle to assess Vanadium on these grounds when the criteria is up for debate. Perhaps this is worth its own discussion thread
2 Likes
It does seem like a lot of these discussion threads get partially derailed as they end up being centered around criteria that does not exist. Fingerprinting and OS specificity are not criteria.
Once content blocking was added to Vanadium, the only legitimate reason made against recommending it has been lack of interest as @anon12918199 mentioned.
Personally I hate this “lets choose what recommendations to consider by round of applause” approach. I also find it to be really ineffective if the goal is to spread awareness of privacy tools but, I also do not have a great alternative to offer other then the goal should be to resolve all tool recommendations, not just ones with a lot of votes.
1 Like
I suspect that the other big reason why browsers like Vanadium or LibreWolf won’t get recommended by PG is that @jonah doesn’t like them as is evident by his My 2024 Web Browser Tier List I know he’s an iOS user, so until he switches to GOS and reads Usage guide | GrapheneOS I don’t think Vanadium will have a big enough push from PG staff to get recommended.
I don’t think that is a fair assessment. I trust @jonah and @staff to make these types of decisions regardless of their own personal opinion on a specific tool.
6 Likes
That article is 2 years old - written before Vanadium added content blocking in early 2024, which is a criteria for PG browser recommendations. I see nothing wrong with that list at that time, nor any reason to allege conspiracy
Let’s stay on topic: Vanadium rules