![]() I would not be comfortable with an “honorable mention”. People learning from this site deserve to know about LibreWolf and the conditions that make it viable. Everything can be configured the same way as Firefox, but LibreWolf is far more convenient and minimal. When automatic updates are available, such as on Linux via flatpak, it matches or outclasses Firefox in every way save for the slight delay in updates. However, I would suggest that it deserves something like an “honorable mention” slot. We want to minimize this, as it is an important part to making privacy and basic security practices (keeping up-to-date) accessible and easy to accomplish. The moment updates become a manual thing, the person using that software has to start keeping track of things. Firefox does that for them on Windows, macOS, and the Linux distributions we recommend are generally good about keeping Firefox up to date. I agree that this is the most important reasons why I’m wary about considering Librewolf for recommendation at this time.īasic features such as easy (that includes automatic) updates are essential to keeping our readers secure. This is a serious concern, and probably enough for LibreWolf to not be recommended by Privacy Guides. ![]() ![]() There are no automatic updates, which is a security risk. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |