Yes. I think in this particular case it gives a central infosec team the ability to allow/deny certain sites, set proxy and other network settings, control which extensions are allowed and do a few other similar things. The point in this scenario is to ensure that where Saas and similar things are used in particularly sensitive applications (think: logging in to a bank portal for a corporate treasury account for instance) the browser environment is tightly controlled and a well-intentioned employee can't accidentally compromise things by using a browser that includes a malicious extension or similar.

I don't think the threat model is it's expected to prevent intentional attacks by a hostile, skilled, priviledged insider put it that way.

I'm not recommending it or anything but so far the browser doesn't seem terrible. It seems to work just like chrome, and I haven't had any problems or noticeable examples of it stopping me from doing anything fwvliw. I'm not trying to circumvent anything or do anything that I'm not actually expected to do as part of my work though so I wouldn't expect problems.

that makes sense, thanks for elaborating

Bit confused by this since Firefox and Chrome already have available GPOs you can apply limiting stuff like this.

I'm sure they do. Island wasn't my idea, just since I've been asked to test it it's literally the only browser I use other than firefox and I was making the point that firefox works fine on cloudflare sites in general so there must be some kind of gitlab-specific problem.