Comment on Add Mull (Mobile Browser) by jonaharagon · Pull Request #2460 · privacyguides/privacyguides.org

Templa@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• barbara@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  That issue is closed and the description is rewritten but mull stays github.com/…/1ce99410188a6af7a1cbe578ac072e83f77e…

  It’s now written as if it was dangerous to use mull which isn’t but it’s better than not recommending it at all. Mull is a great browser even though it’s missing per site process isolation. It just doesn’t pose a threat to most people.

  Missing this feature likely won’t pose an issue for low-risk web browsers who keep their browser up-to-date …

  source

  • Templa@beehaw.org ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s now written as if it was dangerous to use mull which isn’t

    Have you read the thread? Honestly for me it was very painful to read it because you had good arguments with good sources and the replies were all people expressing their own personal opinions. This isn’t good for a place looking to be a reference.

    source

    • barbara@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I skipped a lot in the middle/bottom. I was mainly looking for what the main PG maintainers wrote. Mull isn’t a new app. There was a big discussion around it in autumn and over the years as well. Including mull was mostly carefully thought through, like it was when brave got a recommendation. The voices were loud after brave was added. For me, there’s no risk in using mull and I’m glad that it’s recognized as a good browser although the “risk” title should just be a “warning” instead.

      source