[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkey: an Historical Perspective

Jeremy Dunck jdunck at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 12:43:59 EDT 2005

On 4/18/05, Matthew Gertner <matthew at allpeers.com> wrote:
> Mark,
> > If Greasemonkey makes any overtures towards allowing web publishers to
> > "opt out" or override my browsing experience in any way, I will
> > immediately fork it and make it my life's mission to maintain the fork
> > as long as possible.
> This statement makes me wonder if you read what I wrote. 

I think Mark's arguing slippery slope?

> The main reason I feel so strongly about this suddenly is that I am mortally
> afraid of GM hampering Firefox uptake among corporate clients. GM is way
> cool, but the future of my business depends on Firefox adoption. In fact, I
> was actually thinking about forking GM myself to add the feature I suggested
> to make a special corporate and/or non-developer version. Think about, what
> would you rather adopt: "Greasemonkey"... or "Honeykitten"? :-)

Wow, uh, that's a risky business plan with or without GM, no?  And who
knew a little extension would break businesses?  Anyway, I don't put
too much stock in the Forrester report... I think its very
unfortunate, and may have the negative impact you describe even though
it is totally baseless.  Suits don't have time to view source.

More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list