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.
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 …
> **Mull** is a privacy oriented and deblobbed Android browser based on Firefox. Compared to Firefox, it offers much greater fingerprinting protection out of the box, and disables JavaScript Just-in-Time (JIT) compilation for enhanced security. It also removes all proprietary elements from Firefox, such as replacing Google Play Services references.
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.