[doctorpangloss]

> In theory a diverse set of browsers actually increases security due to the lack of attack surfaces with which you can target a wide audience.

This is intellectually dishonest and the root of the reductive thinking that a target is too small to matter so why should the target invest in security.

[user17843]

The topic we are talking about doesn't imply the question of no security vs. high security, it is way more nuanced, and most Waterfox users probably enjoy a very high level of security due to the content blockers they use.

Also I think my claim that browser diversity actually increases security of the bigger system as a whole is correct, because I did mention it is only valid for non-targeted attacks.

There would be no financially viable way I can think of of targeting waterfox users with code on a website, because there are basically no waterfox users. Even if you manage to include some malware code somewhere on the most used websites, you will probably not get more than a handful of waterfox users to compromise their system.

[doctorpangloss]

> which is exactly why Waterfox has so many users.

> there are basically no waterfox users

[user17843]

1. from the perspective of firefox forks (Waterfox has around 200-300k daily users, which is a lot in this context)

2. from the perspective of the entire web (Waterfox has only around 200-300k daily users, which isn't a lot in this context)