As a Kagi user for years now, I am very interested in a Firefox/Chrome competitor but I will absolutely not use Orion until it is open source.

Just curious: what browser do you currently use? Firefox, Zen?

I'm currently using LibreWolf on desktop and Firefox on Android.

This. Super happy with Kagi but won't use until it is open source.

Falkon uses QtWebEngine, essentially a Chromium (Blink&V8) wrapper. QupZilla, its predecessor, was using QtWebKit. Otter & kbd-driven qutebrowser (two other Qt browsers) for time, and maybe still do, simultaneously supported both.

Same for me. Using a proprietary browser is not quite as bad as using a proprietary OS, but it is a distant second. Hopefully they figure out whatever merit they are waiting for...

I find it strange because it seems to me that outside of their bread and butter products (Kagi Search, Assistant), there really isn't a business secret or proprietary technology to keep secret no? Perhaps integrated browser LLM tooling they don't want to give out for free.

Not too much speculation needed as to why: data collection which is then used to enhance both their Search and Assistant products + they can easily start pushing their search and assistant through the platform once adoption is high enough and people who are used to Orion will more easily be convinced to just fork up a little money for continued or slightly improved features/access

It's more likely it has to do with all the work they're doing to getting the WebExtension API to work with WebKit which is a main selling feature for the MacOS version - using firefox and chrome extensions in a webkit-powered browser.

And esp for the iOS version, where there are not many options for using extensions in other browsers. The only browser there that can use UBO, afaik. In MacOS it is a bit too buggy for me for daily use, ymmv.

Orion does not collect telemetry data [0].

[0] https://orionbrowser.com/privacy

How do you know that? Source is closed. Is a network analyzer enough to determine?

People usually don't compile their browsers from source anyway. And of course, technically, a program can check whether monitoring tools are running and adapt its behaviour accordingly, but this is malware territory and it makes no sense for any reputable browser. Also, technically, one can do that on router level anyway and not have this issue. So yes, I would say that analyzing the network is enough.

"People usually don't compile their browsers from source anyway."

But this is a forum that includes people who do compile their browser from source

As such, if promoting a new browser here, it should be expected people may ask about the availability of source code

I use an HTML browser that is a 2M static binary

It compiles quickly and easily on all the computers I own, and these computers are underpowered

This allows me to customise the software

For example, any "features" I do not wish to have, such as telemetry or other "automatic" remote connections, can be removed

NB. I am not expressing an opinion on the "Orion" software, I am commenting exclusively on the statement, "People usually don't compile their browsers from source anyway" appearing in a forum read by people who _do_ compile their browsers from source

The easiest way to verify "whether there is telemetry" is to look at the source code

To avoid telemetry, interested users can remove it from the source code

Whereas, if telemetry must be found by inspecting network traffic,^1 then users' only choice to avoid telemetry is not to use the software. There is no self-help. Users can plead with the author to remove telemetry to no effect

1. This may be complicated by encryption

Moreover, if the software is subject to change, e.g., "automatic software updates", then telemetry could be added at a later time, e.g., as part of an opaque "update". This requires the user to continually monitor network traffic in order to try to discover "whether there is telemetry"

If users have a copy of the source code, and use a binary compiled from that source code, then this burden does not exist

I was answering to a specific comment asking about whether one absolutely needs the source code to know that there is no telemetry. Not about whether it is reasonable or useful to want to have the source code in general.

Because their entire continued existence depends on maintaining a reputation of preserving privacy?

I usually like to accuse people of the wildest privacy conspiracies, but here in the case of Orion, one day the founder approached me together to work with him, and I tried to see how far is he willing to do in practice (“ok maybe we could do X and Y or Z”).

He stopped me and explained to me that is his business model, and… it was to sell apps / subscriptions. He has no interest into anything else and strongly explained that the user pays and that’s it.

Eventually I didn’t work with him but I have a very positive opinion of him, so at least, based on my experience as a potential employee strongly trusts

> Source is closed. Is a network analyzer enough to determine? Or do a search and give arguments why it's not enough ?

What about their online installers, without which you can't install it?

As a data point, the Orion Alpha is a Flatpak. Not sure about the telemetry status with that.

That is in fact some pretty wild speculation.

Also Ladybird is quite an interesting alternative. Anyone here using it day to day?

Ladybird is a long way off being viable to daily drive

The last Falkon update was 8 months ago (falkon.org/posts), seems like a very long time for a browser without any updates. Is it not a security problem to run a browser like this?

The last update was 2 days ago, see https://github.com/KDE/falkon/tags