I thought of another way to put a reason I am not quite moving to FF yet: If I change my habits around browser use, over to FF, then switch platforms, I again get DNS-over-HTTP (or DoH) which I think I don't want the browser to decide for me, preferring to make that decision at the user or system level as I have done with my non-expert use of DNSSEC on my desktop, which is at the system level. Sending all DNS queries to a single location is another concentration of power. Or, is DoH user-configurable in FF?

So, summarizing, pros/cons as I see them for my usage:

Iridium/Chromium pros:

- ability to create exception lists by domain for JS, images, cookies is built in in a way I know of, without adding plugins or extensions that might get less code review or bought by a malicious maintainer w/o my knowledge (maybe rare, but has been reported for some).

- if I switch platforms and continue with my current usage habits I am not forced into DoH (yet?).

- has pledge/unveil support (limiting risk today on a platform I trust more to do that right, with fewer privilege escalation bugs etc and less complexity/knowledge required than SELinux etc. (many fewer zero-days at the OS level).

Firefox pros:

- avoids mononoculture (a big one).

- Maybe has fewer zero-day bugs than Chromium or the older Iridium (at the user and application level only).

- will probably have OBSD pledge/unveil support in the next OBSD release or sooner.

- Does not send metrics (or other tracking) to Google in the current version (true? I actually don't know, I might have read some accusation that I didn't investigate)? (Does not apply when comparing to Iridium, but that seems to lag Chromium bugfixes by some months.)

I plan to think about weighting these for myself. Corrections welcome on whatever I have missed or forgotten. Thanks much for the discussion.