Interesting, to compare, as much as I love dmenu, I feel dwm is not as good
as i3wm (a typical case of extreme minimalism that hardens
usablity/possibilities).
That's not an issue regarding Firefox though, plus I get that your point was
about the Philosophy. Just sharing a thought :)
I totally agree, Abrowser needs a better default config (or simply configured
addons).
The thing is: where to draw the line?
Most users still expect to have some services available, even if not
recommended (JavaScript for example).
I can think of 3 models:
* a normal browser, useful for when one wants to use JavaScript (Abrowser). I
could be just an instance without addons.
* a hardened browser, just with better security/privacy than the default
config (that would be IceCat)
* a very hardened browser, but still with a minimal amount of addons/config
(for faster maintenance as well). That's basically TorBB.
The logic would be to use the most hardened possible, according to the user's
current need. Maybe that means 40% TorBB, 50% Icecat, 10% Abrowser.
The thing is, what is to be hardened, what is to be left as is?
Geolocation, or safe browsing aren't great, but they aren't serious threats
either, for example (and safe browsing could weaken security if JavaScript
enabled). Or at least it must be easy to enable them back.
Also, what are the most visited types of websites?
Banking/administrations/the occasional "must use JS" website, images,
audio/videos, text.
Maybe I'm missing something.
* TorBB isn't advised for video, and heavy downloads in general.
* Banking etc is better on a vanilla browser, maybe with a few addons (but
with a rather permissive config).
And launched from Firejail for good measure.
That leaves the hardened browser (à la IceCat) for browsing that demands
serious bandwith, and this one deserves strong hardening.
Uh, I got carried away lol. I think I've made it more complex while wanting
to simplify it.
