[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkey: an Historical Perspective

Matthew Gertner matthew at allpeers.com
Mon Apr 18 20:43:37 EDT 2005


> Ignoring for the moment that your proposal is fragile and error-prone 
> (in the same way that browser detection scripts are fragile and 
> error-prone, because they test versions instead of features),

This is precisely what I don't want to ignore. I'd much rather this turn
into a "Matt, your idea won't work" kind of discussion rather than "Matt,
your goal is hopelessly misguided." I agree that my proposal is very
primitive but it might be a good compromise from a KISS perspective (and
certainly a great PR move for the GM community). But I'd love to have a
debate about better ways to manage the fragility of GM scripts, if people
would just accept that this is, indeed, a problem.

> I maintain that the former is unequivocably, unambiguously a bad thing.
> As proof, I offer the following PHP code:
> <meta greasemonkey.somescript.user.js="<?php echo rand() ?>">

Okay, but so what? (See below)

> > As for the latter, if you think that anyone who cares enough about
> blocking
> > GM scripts won't find another way to do it, you're kidding yourself. 
> > I
> bet
> > $5 I could block every script out there ... [snip]
> I bet $5 I've thought more about this issue than you have.

You win. Cash, check or PayPal?

To be honest, I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from. On
the one hand, you are clearly aware of the ease of countering scripts you
don't like (BTW: I already saw your "How to disable Greasemonkey" text but
for some reason I was under the impression that this wasn't foolproof). On
the other hand, you maintain that my proposal is a bad thing because it can
be used to disable scripts. What gives?


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list