| Thanks for sharing your experience! I'm quite opinionated on this topic so buckle up :D We avoided the fork & patch route because it's both labor intensive for a limited return on investment, and a game of catching up. Updating the forked framework is challenging on its own right, let alone porting existing customer payloads to newer versions, locking you de-facto to older versions. I did maintain a custom fork at a previous workplace that was similar in scope to Browserless[0] and I can tell you it was a real pain. Developing your own framework (besides satisfying the obvious NIH itch) allows you to precisely control your exposure (reduce the attack surface) from a security perspective, and protects your customers from upstream decisions such as deprecations or major changes that might not be aligned with your customer requirements. I also have enough experience in this space to know exactly what we need to implement and the capabilities we want to enable. No bloat (yet) > you will burn the user's fingerprint depending on scale It's relative to your activity. See my other comment about scale and use cases, for personal device usage this is not an issue in practice, and users can automate several websites[1] using their personal agents without worrying about this. For more involved scenarios we have appropriate strategies that avoid this issue. > we fix leaks and bugs of automation frameworks Sounds interesting! I'd love to read a write up, or PRs if you have contributed something upstream. 0: https://www.browserless.io/ 1: https://herd.garden/trails |