I’d dare to say that Brave browser established itself in Qubes community for as many as obvious reasons
https://forum.qubes-os.org/search?q=brave%20browser
@rustybird had split-browser for Chrome-based browser on his to-do list
Chromium support (which should cover Brave) is still on my to do list, but then again I call my to do list “the append-only ledger”. So it’s probably not going to happen during the lifetime of Fedora 38. More like Fedora 83…
On the bright side, Mullvad Browser works (because as a fork of Tor Browser it is based on Firefox).
But, as he said here
opened 04:35PM - 17 Jan 21 UTC
From https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-issues/issues/2469#issuecomment-728911065:…
> Ideally, the browser-side code (currently Mozilla AutoConfig) would be rewritten as a WebExtension and then used for both Firefox- and Chromium-based browsers. And I do have a proof of concept lying around from >2 years ago; not even tested with anything besides Tor Browser back then, but it already seemed surprisingly tricky due to:
>
> 1. WebExtension limitations: They can't override standard browser hotkeys. For some functions there's a good alternative (instead of overriding the "add bookmark" hotkey, the extension can handle "bookmark added" events), but some will just have to use worse hotkeys.
>
> 2. WebExtension bugs: Tor Browser doesn't distinguish WebExtensions from websites in that both are blocked from talking to localhost (i.e. the qrexec service). I had to wedge in an ugly "native messaging" shim script relaying messages back and forth.
>
> 3. Browser vendors just hell-bent on making it as hard as possible for the operating system to silently install an extension. Plus, ever more restrictive code signing / distribution channel requirements. I don't know what the situation is today - probably still doable with Firefox ESR (vs. mainline Firefox) and Chromium (vs. Chrome), but what a headache!
>
> 4. Having to redesign how Split Browser configures the browser - things like setting the download directory.
>
> I don't much use Chromium myself, so it hasn't been too appealing to work on this... even though it's such a a glaring omission.
Also, WebExtension APIs didn't seem to support Punycode last time I checked. I'd rather not include some large JavaScript IDN library attempting to duplicate this.
"WebExtension APIs didn't seem to support Punycode"
But, it looks like punycode is deprecated since v7.0.0, and "Users currently depending on the punycode module should switch to using the userland-provided Punycode.js"
https://nodejs.org/api/punycode.html
How does this affect split-browser in general and are we going to see a version for Chrome-based browsers anytime, since the community that uses it heavily grows and this directly affects its privacy and anonymity, at least? I guess, there are people that use Brave and would give up their privacy/anonymity over convenience of storing bookmarks in the browser itself, rather then copy/paste it from some offline local source.
kenosen
September 29, 2024, 2:41pm
2
The developer responded here, but that’s all I’ve seen since.
This is bad news
Build for f40 failed most probably for the reasons I stated above?
If so, the subject of the topic is still valid.
No, that’s not specific to Split Browser. The whole fc40 contrib repo still appears to be broken . Maybe it will be fixed for fc41.
1 Like