The problem with that list is that I already know about the top three and I can't play with the rest because they're for operating systems I don't have.
I did see that, but it reminded me of how little I liked the FireFox 4.0 design over the 3 design...and the other issues Firefox 4 brought.

That's the least of my problems. If it's a web browser that doesn't put privacy first, it'll send data somewhere, and it won't matter whether it will end up in Chinese hands or in space alien hands, it will end up somewhere in any case.

I heard someone from Opera say that the company isn't actually owned by the Chinese, rather they're involved in some way or another but Opera itself remains a Norwegian product handled by Norwegians. If only I could find the comment beneath a sea of other Disqus comments!

Well, like I said I’d do in the other thread, I tried Vivaldi. There were some nice things—like the pretty cool hand gestures—but, ultimately, it’s too much like Chrome to forgo the good things of the latter. For example, I think the console is absolutely the same. It’s still in active development, so I hope they will separate themselves and do their own things at some point . . . until then, though, I’ll stick with the tried‐and‐trusted Chrome.

Arachne does actually compile for and run under Linux as well.

Care to share some information with the rest of the class?

I didn't even knew that Arora still existed. I remember working on the media part a couple of years ago...
There are also some embedded-optimized browsers which normal users rarely know about by name like: WebKitForWeyland - webkit fork with egl and wayland support. Espial has a browser for the TV market which is also quite fast and well optimized for just that. These are webkit forks though. I think that at the moment most browsers use a flavor of the big 3 (firefox, chromium, webkit)

I just wanted to use this opportunity get on my personal soapbox and rant about the utter arrogance of Firefox's developers.

Instead of working on features that people actually wanted, like, you know, better performance and more efficient use of resources, Firefox developers and the Mozilla Foundation instead saw fit to give us a built-in Skype competitor that no one wanted or asked for (from what I saw), unnecessary Pocket integration and a dubious branding campaign. Of yes, and of course there was their attempt at creating an entirely new mobile platform, because those always turn out so well. Vivaldi's not so bad, and it actually seems to have been created out of sincere motivations (as opposed to cynically creating a startup with the only real endgame being bought out by a company like Google). The only problem with it is that it really feels like it was made for old-school Opera fans, which is great if you loved pre-Chrome Opera, but it doesn't really connect with me as I was never an Opera devotee.

My only concern is its long-term feasibility. I know Vivaldi's been trying to branch out by positioning itself as a "power-user's browser". But it still very much comes across as a niche market browser. That's actually by design; SeaMonkey basically aims to continue the original Mozilla Application Suite/Netscape Communicator, except with developments, enhancements, bug fixes, and changes in step with other Mozilla projects like Firefox and Thunderbird. What's nice about it is that it has far better legacy support than Firefox. I'd be more amenable to using it, if there was an UI theme for it that better matched OS X. *coughs* I don't know what you're talking about. I've flirted on and off with using Pale Moon; it pretty much is the closest thing I can get to a modern day version of my long-lost browser love, Camino. The OS X version is very mature (with just a few minor bugs holding it back from official status), and it enjoys both a passionate and engaged developer, and a very loyal and devoted community following. I would have switched to it full-time if it weren't for...

Waterfox. It's pretty much what 64-bit Firefox should be. After discovering that it had an OS X version with good legacy support, I switched almost immediately and never looked back.

Edit: The only caveat with using Waterfox is that it uses your existing Firefox profile, which is great if you wanted to do a seamless, wholesale switch (as I did), but an annoyance if you want to keep browsers on separate profiles for testing purposes.

According to Engadget:

I want to really draw attention to the fact that TenFourFox is a technically impressive project, and a boon for hobbyists like myself who can't bear to part with their PPC hardware. Oh yeah, and I absolutely love how the project's website is a sly parody of Apple's own site design.

Dooble may not be quite ready for prime time, but I like a lot of what it does.

I'd noticed that. In fact, I'm still seeing that reflected in rants about most Mozilla products and I even took the liberty of snarking on all their logo choices. (I recall tolerating one and basically told Mozilla that they had wasted their money on the firm.)

However, I also noticed a similar rant directed towards Pale Moon recently, right over here in these comments.

Oh. I wondered what became of Firefox OS. When even Ubuntu fails to break into the market, you know you've got a tough cookie to deal with.

I understand the concerns about Vivaldi. I have them too. I ran with Opera in the interim period between Chrome actually gaining proper plugin support and occasionally when I felt Firefox was dragging it's feet. It was the first browser with plugin support that I had been aware of at the time, if I recall. Which is a bit of an odd order. The thing is, Firefox is plenty power user friendly, but the power user tools are not user friendly. And Chrome has plenty of tweaks hidden away on the flags page. I suppose what Vivaldi seeks to do is bring those back to the fore in a presentable way, because I'll admit that there are a ton of Chrome flags that I've never touched, much less know what they even do.

While Legacy support doesn't really matter to me, (I'm running Windows 10 and Fedora 25) the whole idea behind Seamonkey does appeal in the way that it seems less prone to getting a blackjack to the head from either upper management or any single developer because it has an actual focus.

Yes you do know what I'm talking about.

I've looked at both Palemoon and Waterfox, but at this point, I'm seeing all these Firefox derivatives and wondering if some of these projects shouldn't just merge. Like how I've seen a few desktop environments and Linux OSes merge recently.
I'm not sure I'm fond of the shiny metal buttons, (The Material Design philosophy has me pretty good, explaining why I'm so down on Firefox's UX), but I have to remind myself that from looking at the screenshots, that appears to be some version of Linux Mint they're showing it off in.

Otherwise, yeah. That is an interesting project. Doesn't seem to be aimed at be completely tinfoil or even all that weird.

I'm noticing that QT is very much becoming quite popular as a design toolkit.

I was using firefox but like slimjet better.

I don't want to turn this into YAF rant about Firefox/Mozilla, but IIRC a lot of us were wondering what on earth they were thinking with Firefox OS. Especially since said they were targeting emerging markets, when companies like OnePlus, Ubuntu and Google (with Android One) basically beat them to market.

An interesting idea; in the years to come it wouldn't surprise me if it did come to that, if the toll of active development ends up being too much for the main developers of these projects to handle. That's especially true for projects like Pale Moon or Waterfox, which are effectively one-man shows. Ideally, what would be nice to see for me are more prominent Firefox derivatives like Pale Moon and Waterfox officially coexisting with Firefox the same way distros like Kubuntu, Xubuntu, or Lubuntu coexist with Ubuntu.

Of course what helps those distros a whole lot is that they are sanctioned and partly maintained by at least some part of the main development base. Same with the Fedora Spins, except you've also got the Redhat group to help too. but I don't really see the Mozilla team sanctioning anything which they might view as being a threat to their bottom line, like a "superior" version.

Also...YAF? All I got were results about conservatives brainwashing the youth.