>What does /tech/ think about qutebrowser and QtWebEngine?
I use it. The bad are Python (the parts made with it can be slow), tranny CoCk, lack of folders in bookmarks, Qtwebengine being the most horrible package to compile and developement being quite dead.
>The only problem is the lack of a proper ad blocker (it uses a hosts file like method atm)
I used to think the same thing, but it works.
>and umatrix/noscript like functionality atm.
Well, there's per-domain settings, but it's not the same, I agree.
>Suppose we'll have to wait until the extension API is done https://github.com/qutebrowser/qutebrowser/issues/30
Good luck.
>What are your thoughts on security and privacy of qutebrowser/QtWebEngine?
>QtWebEngine is ripped from Chromium after all.
>https://wiki.qt.io/QtWebEngine says
>Binary files are stripped out
>Auxiliary services that talk to Google platforms are stripped out
>Is that enough for it to be trustworthy?
Use netstat.
>And why the fuck does it depend on dbus ffs?
Because they didn't strip it out. At least, it doesn't depend on it at runtime.
If only netsurf wasn't dead.