[Greasemonkey] Greasemonkey: an Historical Perspective

Matthew Gertner matthew at allpeers.com
Mon Apr 18 20:52:44 EDT 2005

Jeremy said:
> 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.

And Scott said:
> Speaking as a corporate stuffed shirt, I don't think this is really a
> big worry.  Corporations are overwhelmingly concerned with "cost of
> deployment" -- which includes the implied costs of computer security.
> I doubt very much that any corporate type is going to reject Firefox
> because of the Greasemonkey extension.

I hope you guys are right. I haven't even read the damn report (has
anyone?), but I may have to shell out the $49 just so I can be a little less
clueless. I'm already out $5 to Mark, though...

The problem is that FUD can be a very powerful weapon, especially when
wielded by Microsoft. The proposal I made is, more than anything, a PR
tactic to counter this. But maybe I'm just overreacting.


More information about the Greasemonkey mailing list