•  kyub   ( @kyub@discuss.tchncs.de ) English
    17•4 days ago

    Both are good. Librewolf is more like vanilla Firefox, just configured way better by default. Mullvad Browser is like a port of the Tor Browser (also based on Firefox) for the clear web (or for use with Mullvad’s VPN, or whatever). Also configured very well by default. Mullvad Browser has better anti fingerprinting stuff built-in but as a result of its unusual configuration some sites might be broken. Librewolf is kind of the opposite in that regard - sites won’t be broken but you’ll be easier to fingerprint. In any case, they both are at the top of the best Firefox variants I’d say.

  •  boredsquirrel   ( @boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net ) 
    14•4 days ago

    Librewolf uses Torbrowser configs, Mull uses the Torbrowser repo and entire config.

    Torbrowser always uses the private browsing mode, which is really restrictive. Tabgroups do not work, cookies cannot be saved etc.

    This makes MullvadBrowser way worse for daily browsing.

    Torbrowser cannot use normal browsing mode, because they want to avoid saving data on the disk. Everything is in RAM.

  •  Telorand   ( @Telorand@reddthat.com ) 
    12•5 days ago

    I like LibreWolf, but I don’t like that it wipes cookies and session tokens each time you launch it. I understand why they do it, but it’s a consideration outside my threat model, so it just annoys me.

        •  sunglocto   ( @sunglocto@lemmy.zip ) English
          19•5 days ago

          No, because Librewolf also adds fingerprint resisting which is stronger than Firefox’s and has ublock origin installed by default. It also has the ability to block stuff like WebGL and JS canvases by default

          Also, Librewolf strips out telemetry and allows for some good about:config flags to be used via simple toggles in settings

          •  bamboo   ( @bamboo@lemm.ee ) 
            6•4 days ago

            I do genuinely believe that these Firefox forks are mostly pointless rebrands of Firefox to satisfy a small crowd of people who are fine with Firefox but don’t want Firefox or Mozilla branding. Other than branding, they tweak the default config, pre-install ublock origin, and that’s about it. I guess this one exposes some already existing about:config flags in the settings UI. The best part is they are managed by small teams that run a few versions behind Firefox persistently, leaving 0-days unpatched and thus their users vulnerable. Their small userbase also opens their users up to tracking that wouldn’t be possible with larger browsers.

            •  kixik   ( @kixik@lemmy.ml ) 
              4•4 days ago

              Not true, FF comes with few binary blobs which are removed from Librewolf. Also there are some things disabled entirely at build time, so they are removed from being an option. So it’s not just the settings, and it’s not plain re-branding. Some distros has gotten it wrong, believing that it’s just a matter of settings, but at least on the case of Librewolf and the Tor browser that’s not the case.

              That hey depend on FF continuous development to exist is true, that doesn’t mean they just rebrand.

              •  bamboo   ( @bamboo@lemm.ee ) 
                2•4 days ago

                Tor browser is something else, I don’t group it in with stuff like Librewolf.

                For librewolf, I just took a look to try and figure out what binary blobs are being talked about. This is the repository I was looking at, I think its the right place: https://codeberg.org/librewolf/source/src/branch/main. There isn’t much documentation on the patches besides the file names for the most part, but do you have any idea which of these relates to binary blobs? Or is it in the settings file? Really nothing I see here convinces me that this project is worth anybody’s time over regular firefox, it just changes some defaults, disables pocket (they patch it out, but there’s already a setting), and changes the branding. I don’t disagree with most of their changes, I just don’t see the point of maintaining and marketing an entire derivative browser for what could just be a settings hardening guide on a wiki somewhere.

                •  kixik   ( @kixik@lemmy.ml ) 
                  1•4 days ago

                  There are several patches under its patches source directory, and there are different sort of packages, one example is the sed patch to avoid including pocket in the build. The DRM widevine is not included either on the build, though it can be installed if you want it installed (probably there’s a patch for that somewhere).

                  But I no longer see removing binary blobs being advertised by Librewolf, it’s been a while since I don’t check on their site…

    •  Fonzie!   ( @lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network ) 
      4•4 days ago

      You can also easily set specific sites’ cookies not to be wiped, I use this to have websites I trust to store my data for convenience, but any random tracker-infested blog to forget me as soon as the browser closes!

      And also, Mullvad Browser does this by default, as well. I think theirs can’t even be configured on a per-site basis.

  •  thingsiplay   ( @thingsiplay@beehaw.org ) 
    9•5 days ago
    • trust: The biggest trust factor difference to me is, who manages the package and how it is installed. Both are not packaged by my distribution maintainers, therefore I have trust issues with a program that important. However both are available as Flatpak. So I would recommend to install it this way.
    • updates: Another big factor is how often these are updated, especially security patches. In example for any Firefox based browser, I would not want to wait longer than 1 day before the fork is on the same version as the mainline Firefox.

    I personally would prefer LibreWolf over Mullvad, because it is based off Firefox.

  •  Captain Beyond   ( @beyond@linkage.ds8.zone ) 
    6•4 days ago

    Librewolf comes packaged by my distro (GNU Guix) so that’s what I use. I’m sure most “privacy” or “hardened” Firefoxes are more or less interchangeable. The only one that’s really noteworthy is GNU IceCat, because it’s more focused on software-freedom and includes the LibreJS addon, but I switched to Librewolf once it was packaged for Guix.

    •  isolatedscotch   ( @isolatedscotch@discuss.tchncs.de ) 
      10•4 days ago

      No, mull is a fork of Firefox meant for android and developed by the divestOS team, while mullvad is a completely different fork, only for desktop atm and developed by mullvad (the VPN company)

      they both focus on privacy and integrate Tor patches and modify some configs to better resist fingerprinting, but mullvad browser goes a step further with the tor integration, going as far as storing all data in RAM, so it deletes every cookie, history etc on restart. Could be an advantage, could be a disadvantage, up to you

  •  some_guy   ( @some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org ) 
    3•4 days ago

    I’ve had Mullvad installed for around a year or more. I turn to it from time to time when I wanna keep things separate from my regular browser, like if I’m looking into items on Amazon that I only need once and don’t want recommendations to get polluted. For example, I was looking at the price of spinning platter HDs after one failed in a NAS. I don’t want Amazon trying to sell me more old-tech drives once I replace it.

    Has worked well so far. Haven’t tried the other one.

  •  dino   ( @dino@discuss.tchncs.de ) English
    2•4 days ago

    Firefox + Arkenfox … :P Using Mullvad as a backup before having to use chromium for any dirty stuff. Librewolf seems to be like a good recommendation for non-technical people. Although I am not sure which browser has less breakage Mullvad or Libre.