(independent? Fork of apple webkit and KHTML by KDE), (qt for cute, interface framework)
(independent? Still maintained by and developed by KDE community 1990s and forked to Webkit>qtwebkit etc.) (K for KDE and being an html based browser)
(Independent?) The Fast, Light Toolkit (FLTK) is a cross-platform C++ GUI toolkit designed for developing graphical user interfaces. Here’s an overview of its origins and the current organizations involved in its development:
Example- The NetSurf browser is built on its own unique rendering engine, which is designed to be lightweight and efficient. Here’s an overview of how the engine for NetSurf was made and what it consists of:
The engine for the NetSurf browser is a custom-built rendering engine developed specifically for the browser. It consists of components for HTML rendering, CSS support, image handling, and limited JavaScript support. Its lightweight design and cross-platform compatibility make it suitable for various operating systems, while its origins in RISC OS reflect its focus on efficiency and performance.
(Independent? Based on Gecko, made and maintained by Pale Moon)
The Goanna engine is an open-source web rendering engine, derived from the Gecko engine. It is primarily used in the Pale Moon browser, which is developed by a separate team from Mozilla. Goanna is released under the Mozilla Public License, similar to Gecko, allowing users to view, modify, and distribute its source code.
In summary, Goanna is indeed completely open-source, aligning with the principles of transparency and community involvement in software development. The Goanna engine is not dependent on Mozilla or its decisions. Goanna is a fork of the Gecko engine, which was developed by Mozilla, but it has been maintained independently by the Pale Moon project. Here are some key points to clarify this relationship:
In summary, the Goanna engine operates independently of Mozilla, and its development is not subject to the decisions made by Mozilla or its proprietors. It has its own goals and development team, focusing on the needs of the Pale Moon project.
(built by and maintained by Mozilla (Firefox))
(built and maintained by Apple, built/forked from KHTML)
(Chromium - Built and maintained by Google - All browsers based on funding from google including Blink and Qtwebengine being generally much less customizeable as well as adding to the concern that Chromium overtakes the entire field, leaving no space towards improvement at engine-level, towards private persons in general.) (QtWebEngine - always based on the Blink rendering engine and is connected to the Chromium project in all browsers that utilize it.)
+ Firefox / Firefox ESR, TOR, Mullvad (Gecko) (> Possible mainstream maintained browser/engine exceptions to adapt to modern web standards when necessary/desired - FF being the original browser engine of most quality privacy browsers and itself being modifiable towards privacy. Tor / Mullvad being derived from FireFox Gecko engine, adding time-tested privacy features.)
+ Dillo (-arma+dillo), (Arora ?), Netsurf, Konqueror, Otter, (Rekonq ?)(>independent or partly independent engines - thus ensuring extended oversight and end-user control in the Open Source Software community especially by way of browser background configuration/programming - These browsers can be configured/programmed towards privacy with relative ease - However these overall barely include any extension support in terms of privacy/security/adblocking. Such common extensions may offer crucial features/functions that may not be sustainable or maintainable to configure/program by the common end-user in these or similar non-addon/extension supporting browsers - independent of big funding Corpos and minimal/Open Source/Easy to keep oversight, as they may be.)
+ Palemoon, Basilisk, serpent, (>Goanna engine Based - these Browsers being the only browsers that support mainstream addons/extensions such as ublock origin, that are based on an outward culprit of independent development teams/people who maintain and develop the inherent coding to the browsers. )
(Otter seems to be the main contestant towards ambitions of adopting extensions/addons, present time.). Recommended extensions aside from Matrix/uMatrix: Decentraleyes, NoScript, Ublock Origin, Cookie Autodelete. (Alternatives currently rendered irrelevant in terms of function, reliability etc..)
| BROWSER | JAVASCRIPT SUPPORT | WEBGL SUPPORT | WEBRTC SUPPORT | CSS SUPPORT | ENGINE | TEXT-BASED | SUPPORTS EXTENSIONS/ADD-ONS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lynx | Limited | No | No | Basic | N/A | Yes | No |
| w3m | Limited | No | No | Basic | N/A | Yes | No |
| Links | Limited | No | No | Basic | N/A | Yes | No |
| Eww | Limited | No | No | Basic | N/A | Yes | No |
| Browsh | Limited | No | No | Basic | N/A | Yes | No |
| Suckless Surf | Limited | No | No | Basic | WebKit, propr. | No | No |
| Dillo | Limited | No | No | Basic | FLTK | No | No |
| FireDragon | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Gecko | No | Yes |
| Arora | Yes | No | No | Basic | QtWebKit | No | No - discontinued |
| NetSurf | Yes | No | No | Partial | Custom | No | No |
| BadWolf | Yes | No | No | Partial | Gecko | No | Yes |
| Konqueror | Yes | Limited | Limited | Good | KHTML | No | Yes |
| Otter Browser | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | QtWebKit | No | Yes |
| Ladybird | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | WebKit, propr. | No | Yes |
| Zen | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | WebKit, propr. | No | Yes |
| Falkon | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | QtWebEngine, blink | No | Yes |
| Midori | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | WebKit, propr. | No | Yes |
| Qutebrowser | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | QtWebEngine, blink, chr. | No | Yes |
| Nyxt | Yes | Yes | Yes | Advanced | WebKit, propr. | No | Yes |
| Pale Moon | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | Goanna (Gecko fork) | No | Yes |
| Waterfox | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | Gecko | No | Yes |
| Basilisk | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | Goanna (Gecko fork) | No | Yes |
| SeaMonkey | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | Gecko | No | Yes |
| Mullvad | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | Firefox (Gecko) | No | Yes |
| Arc | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | WebKit, propr. | No | Yes |
| Netrunner | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | WebKit, propr. | No | Yes |
| Safari | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | WebKit, propr. | No | Yes |
| Opera | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | Blink, chr. | No | Yes |
| Epiphany | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | WebKit, propr. | No | Yes |
| Flock | Yes | Yes | Yes | Good | Gecko | No | Yes - not for linux |
| Ironfox | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Gecko | No | Yes |
| BROWSER | ENGINE | JAVASCRIPT SUPPORT | WEBGL SUPPORT | WEBRTC SUPPORT | CSS SUPPORT | UBLOCK ORIGIN SUPPORT | TEXT-BASED |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serpent | Goanna | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Mull | Gecko | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Pale Moon Classic | Goanna, Gecko fork | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Fennec | Gecko | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No - android |
| Swiftfox | Gecko | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| vimb | WebKit, propr. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Min | Electron, blink, chr | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Rekonq | QtWebKit | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No - Discontinued 2014 |
| Librewolf | Gecko | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Electron = based on Chromium
Notes:- What is mull compared to mullvad browser ? Mull Browser is indeed connected to the Mullvad Browser. Both browsers share a focus on privacy and security, but they are distinct products developed by different teams. Connection Details Mullvad Browser: Developed by Mullvad VPN in collaboration with the Tor Project, it emphasizes privacy and anonymity while browsing the internet. It is designed to work seamlessly with Mullvad VPN services. Mull Browser: While it shares a similar name and privacy focus, it is a separate project. The Mull Browser is designed to provide a secure browsing experience, but it may not have the same level of integration with the Tor network as the Mullvad Browser. Both browsers prioritize user privacy and security, but they are developed independently and may have different features and functionalities. Both browsers are still (as of sept. 2025) relatively new browsers, thus it may be more difficult to predict their stability and ongoing maintenance - Mullvad VPN was first released in 2019, making the origins of mullvad browser possibly more reliable comparatively to Mull browser.Mullvad browser was released Nov 2024 and Mull Mar. 2024
- Personally I have experienced some issues with Librewolf browser, which is another privacy focused gecko browser. It was released Mar. 2020, so by now (2025) it should possibly be more reliable - this has not been my experience unfortunately. Possibly i messed around with the settings in a way that, without warning, rendered it unstable, though i did not change anything that was not common to the user settings that i know of. I hope Im wrong, but i cannot recommend as of now.- All browser engines mentioned, even Chromium, are at their core Open Source, however the companies that manage those engines implement proprietary code embedded into the browsers that utilize those engines. Since no other companies/Corporations manage those engines, they are always going to be liable to compromise. The complex interplay with modern web standards, programming of webpages, corporate agendas etc. will dictate where the big corporations (Google, Apple, and of course Mozilla as well) take all of those browsers and browser engines.
- In case you got attached to the functionality of the Chromium engine, or harbored hope towards independent management of the chrome engine, this may be of note: Ungoogled Chromium Browser is maintained and developed by a community of contributors rather than a single organization. The project aims to provide a version of Chromium that removes all Google-specific features and services, enhancing user privacy and control. Key Points about Ungoogled Chromium Community-Driven: The project is open-source, allowing developers from around the world to contribute to its codebase. Focus on Privacy: It strips out features that connect to Google services, making it more privacy-centric compared to standard Chromium. Fork of Chromium: Ungoogled Chromium is a fork of the Chromium project, meaning it starts with the original Chromium code and modifies it to meet its goals. The project is hosted on platforms like GitHub, where users can report issues, suggest features, and contribute code. Security Updates: Regularly pulls updates from the mainline Chromium repository, ensuring it benefits from the latest security patches.
However chromium engine is still likely going to be caught up with implementations made around other standard chromium-based browsers and may not be capable of standing "alone" to the extent that one might hope, nor for as long as hoped, I imagine. Considering the fact that the development/maintenance team of the browser are independent, it might be worth looking into. Personally I am not at all inclined to try this option, as the engine is still and probably significantly so, created by Google as a basis for everything else on the browser. Also, the allowance of Google towards independent management of its engine, is it believeable that it will be benevolent into the future ? - Maybe not.
- How about Open Source Browsers, despite the liability of Big Corporation agenda involvement ? (Mind You - Of course the individual configuration and programming of that Open Source Browser Code may be large, complex, and unalterable in practicality, as would likely be the case) The main Browser Engines that are under the definite influence of Large Corporations, while also possibly offering Open Source coding, are as follows, largely:
# CHROMIUM (with the exception of ungoogled chromium), BLINK and WEBKIT, all browsers seem to contain proprietary code.
# GECKO (Mozilla) browsers generally across the board, are Open Source
# QTWEBENGINE browsers (Falkon and QuteBrowser mainly, neither of which so far support addons/extensions otherwise common between other browser engines) also seem to be fully Open Source, however as mentioned earlier in this document, the QTWebEngine is dependent on Blink and thus the Chromium Project, which will inevitably follow policy towards Google, depending upon circumstance, to what extent or in what way, may be rather unpredictable in regards to the setup and further development of those browsers.
- Regardless what Browser you use, it would be highly recommended to look into your specific Open Source browser of interest, in terms of its specific attributes towards privacy/security/adblocking, value system, up-to-date attributes including updates to the code and behavior of your installed browser(s), as well as taking a cautious approach towards proprietary or compromized code in any extensions/addons, since addons/extensions impact the base code of the browser itself, and thus may easily compromise an entire digital system that would otherwise be setup towards a certain standard.
- In general i recommend caution towards any Browsers that utilize digital currency inherently or where that type of usage of a browser is encouraged by the policy of the browser. The frontrunners in this respect seem to be (2025) Brave and Opera , with Vivaldi, Edge(< all chromium-based Browsers), Safari(WebKit) and Epiphany (Gnome Web)(WebKit) possibly adapting to those same preferences. Lesser-known browsers such as Decentr would also be a frontrunner in this respect. Personally I have had rather bad experiences with Brave (privacy respecting as it may be) and decentr, in terms of resource usage and problems uninstalling their software.
- How about privacy/security/adblocking-respecting browsers that are proprietary and decidedly controlled by Big corporate agenda, that adopt policies and implementations into their coding, which do support adblocking/privacy/security ? - Why bother, if the basic coding is unviewable and thus basically unalterable towards the interest of public scrutiny, so long as alternatives exist that do respect those same values or let the user implement their own preferences towards those values, without the liability of a browser containing inherent proprietary software ?
- Sadly, I do not have many gecko-engine browsers to recommend aside from the originator FireFox (including ESR version), which is more likely to stay maintained by programmers into the future, as well as limited practical observations regarding Mullvad and Tor (all Mozilla Gecko browsers). Waterfox and IceCat would probably be some of the more time-tested Mozilla-Gecko alternative browsers, that are at the same time (at least outwardly) privacy/security/adblocking and Open Source-respecting in terms of their value statements. Floorp and Ironfox were released in 2021 and waterfox was first released 2011. Icecat was first released for public use in 2006. Going by the logic that names of things inevitably come to dictate what they turn into and as far as experience dictates, I might recommend any one of those browsers to someone trying to find firefox/mozilla/gecko-based alternatives to Mozilla FireFox itself.
- For self-evident reasons I have not included on the list any new browsers that inherently utilize AI (these would inevitably be moving towards more of an AI takeover than conscious choices/discernment in regards to AI)
- Utilizing TOR Browser, do take a cautious approach and do your due diligence in the form of researching proper usage of TOR.
While Independent engine-based browsers are mostly incapable of the following (except Goanna-based browsers, possibly Otter browser):
1# Accessing i.e. banking logins and other official pages that rely on Java Script and other modern programming geared towards modern web standard usage and safety online,
2#Lacking capacity towards addons/extensions (even ones geared solely towards a more wholesome approach to privacy/security/adblocking)
- Independent browser engines can handle most common usage of the www quite well, without significantly slower speeds. These browsers may be easier to work with in Linux-based operating Systems. For Mac OS, out of the non-javascript supporting browsers mentioned and recommended on this page, can only install and run NetSurf. Windows can run all those mentioned except Konqueror and Rekonq browsers (Rekonq was discontinued in 2014). Linux can run all of them, possibly with increased efficiency in terms of added features connected to the browsing experience, such as playing certain elements of the www in other programs simultaneously. If your daily use case requires the use of Mac Os or Windows, i suggest switching to a PC that has the capacity to run a virtual machine, where you can access a linux Operating System from the same computer that has a basic installation of Windows or Mac OS.
Will these independent browsers stay "alive" or have a shelf-life of at least a couple of years into the future in terms of the development/maintenance programmer teams of their coding, continuing to keep the code up-to-date and functional ? - Who is to say (and will it even be necessary, if their coding is basic enough, that it will be able to access the www regardless of how the modern web changes over time ?), my contention so far is that their basic programming should likely stay relevant for decades down the line, since all coding of browsers goes back to the same source and history developmentally - only more modern browsers implement alot of coding in addition to and on top of that basic coding, which corrupts and erodes the basic efficiency and even low-resource usage and ease of maintenance, which more traditional and basic browsers still offer and refine. That is the most promising condition in regards to the privacy/security/adblocking and stability of browsing online into the future, aside from new technologies such as android or other alternatives, which themselves also are developing some alternatives into the future, so far as I can tell.
The lack of modern browsers that are independent, fully Open Source and respectful of the interests of the end-user is a frustrating digital "jungle" and i do personally hate to have to compromize and use modern browsers for specific logins, and i hate the fact that older and actually code-wise superior browsers may lack maintenance to the point that there may soon be no real alternatives to browsers under the wings of Big Corporations. However, I am hopeful that the simplicity and efficiency of those more independent browsers will survive into the future in whichever format - Hopefully even going further back in history in terms of programming to fix the places where the coding went down a commercial path that led towards further complication, rather than simplicity, oversight and efficiency.Of course, that is not what will likely happen with how society has been set up into the modern times, but I also have to think that inevitably, there will be some return to more reliable and basic software, or at least clearer contracts for how data is handled online, that ensure end-user interests and safety ultimately, despite technical complexity and compromize. As it stands, end-users do not have much influence legally or technically, unless they are willing/able to invest the time and effort towards keeping other options "alive", mainly through recommending, studying and implementing those alternatives as needed, regardless of the complexity of options and the shifting trends and requirements socially/societally.
Relying on experience and user reviews comparatively to info-sharing, may make it that much more difficult to notice what modern tech takes away from people and to me it seems, overall whenever these technologies gets more immediately noticeable or obstructive, patches seem to be made, in order to basically "sweep under the rug" the basic incoherencies, due to which some people may decidedly turn prey to, relatively speaking. If all else fails, I imagine that the text-based and terminal-based browsers will stay operational for decades into the future, given their simple and basic adherence to the terminal code itself, despite requiring some effort and terminal-knowledge as well as acceptance of the lack of a graphically pleasing / mouse/pad-operated interface to some extent. The alternatives are out there, and always will be - I see this as a kind of inherent, natural law.