@wiak :-
It's a bit of a mish-mash, Will. There's no rhyme or reason to it.
Ungoogled Chromium runs as user 'spot'. Now; at one time, we were able to run all Chromium 'clones' as 'root', because of the "--no-sandbox" switch. Some are still quite happy to run like this, although the coding changed ever so slightly.
The "--no-sandbox" switch is still in the code-base. However, on certain projects - Google's Chrome, 'vanilla' Chromium, Ungoogled Chromium, and, I think, Brave - who develop their browsers primarily with mainstream, multi-user distros in mind, their respective devs have deprecated the use of this switch. It's still possible to run as 'root', but you now have to employ the "--test-type" switch instead.....and, as you may recall from a while back, the use of "--test-type" precludes a certain amount of Google functionality; many things will no longer sign-in correctly. Stuff like that.
viewtopic.php?p=699#p699
(Read the linked post, and the few immediately following.....which includes your own observations).
So; with browsers where they behave better under user 'spot', that's how I set them up to run. In other instances, where running as 'root' doesn't impede that above-mentioned functionality - like Slimjet; Iron, & Vivaldi - those browsers are set to run as 'root' with the "--no-sandbox" parameter.
----------------------------------------
'Zilla-based browsers, of course - with very few exceptions - have NEVER had an issue with running as 'root'. One of those rare exceptions being the LibreWolf project, where the project's aim is that of ultra-high security.....and traditional Linux/Unix wisdom states that running as 'root' is oh! SO dangerous.
https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2010/01 ... -not-root/
(I know his comments fly in the face of all that's considered sacred & holy by many....but he does have a point. Of course, in a multi-user environment, separating users from the system, AND each other, makes perfect sense from a security standpoint.....the consequences of each user's online activities (which is where most crap comes into the system) CANNOT impinge on any one else, OR the system that they're running on. I certainly won't deny the logic of that.)
But in our case - Puppy's case - where by design the system is that of a single-user one, I feel that 'spot' suffices for those use-cases where restricted-permission user access is mandated. Ruffers is probably right about the 'tab-sandboxing' thing; if every tab runs individually to every other, it is by design a higher-security model than one where this is not the case. This was doubtless what Chrome's designers originally had in mind back in the initial development phase all those years ago.
For anyone wanting to run 'zilla browsers as user 'spot', in addition to the in-built 'spot'-chooser mechanism, I also published some modified 'LAUNCH' scripts for the Firefox 'portables'. These are just a straight, drop-in replacement for the standard ones.
viewtopic.php?p=55087#p55087
Mike.