12 ms·

Google Chrome 4 now natively supports Greasemonkey user scripts

116 points by sahaj 17y ago

muffins 17y ago
I really do WANT to use Chrome, but there are so many Firefox extensions I just can't do without. One step closer though.
- thorax 17y ago
  They'll never have Tree Style Tabs I imagine, so I'm stuck forever with Firefox for that extension. Not that I mind Firefox, but Chrome gets to do a reboot and start again without carrying legacy support/etc with it. Early versions of Firefox felt "lighter" than IE to me for that reason.
  - sketerpot 17y ago
    Remember when Firefox was the lightweight web browser? Of course it was called Phoenix back then, and later Firebird. It was refreshing.
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      Firefox was never a lightweight browser. It was fairly minimalist, especially compared with what came before it, but those things were just switched off or hidden, not removed, because that would have been a lot more work. It's probably only got more "lightweight" with time as they've had more opportunity and funding to optimise and actually remove things they don't use.
pyre 17y ago
Is the Chromium UserScripts page[1] out of date? Or are these still issues? Chromium does not support @require, @resource, unsafeWindow, GM_registerMenuCommand, GM_setValue, or GM_getValue. A lot of scripts that I come across use `unsafeWindow`, `GM_setValue` and `GM_getValue.` It seems to be updated (since the last time I looked at it), since I believe it used to say that @exclude was not implemented, and now I don't even see a mention of it on the page (though I don't think I've come across a script that used @exclude). [1]: http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/user-scripts http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/user-scr... [UPDATE] This should shine some light on the topic: http://www.greasespot.net/2009/11/greasemonkey-api-usage.html http://www.greasespot.net/2009/11/greasemonkey-api-usage.htm...
- Semiapies 17y ago
  None of my personal scripts (which all use @require or unsafeWindow) work on this. I've been meaning to convert them to Chrome extensions anyway, though.
- aboodman 17y ago
  Mostly up to date, but I freshened some things.
- tung 17y ago
  A Chrome-modified script I'm looking at uses `localStorage.setItem(name, value)` and `localStorage.getItem(name)` to re-implement `GM_setValue` and `GM_getValue`. The author stores and recovers type info as the first character of the data.
gkoberger 17y ago
The best part about this announcement is that Google Chrome won't be treating user scripts as second-class extensions. Greasemonkey scripts will be treated like real extensions. The ease of creating Greasemonkey scripts plus the visibility of real extensions in the browser takes Google Chrome a huge step closer to Firefox.
sri 17y ago
I have a Greasemonkey script in FF (http://defcraft.blogspot.com/2009/02/greasemonkey-search-helper.html http://defcraft.blogspot.com/2009/02/greasemonkey-search-hel...) that'll google for the current selection in a background tab when ALT-G is pressed. And it uses GM_openInTab API call. Its equivalent in Chrome seems to be chrome.tabs.create. But when I tried that, I get this error: "chrome.tabs is not supported in content scripts". It seems that these "content scripts" aren't as powerful as extensions (http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/content_scripts.html http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/content_scripts.htm...). Am I missing something here?
- joeyo 17y ago
  I realize that this doesn't exactly address the root cause of your issue, but if you right click on selected text in Chrome, one of the menu entries will be to google for it in another tab.
- statictype 17y ago
  Yes. Chrome has different ways of extending the browser. One is content scripts - which don't have access to certain parts of the Chrome api like opening tabs. However, each extension can have what they call a background page. This is just an html page which is loaded in the background and there can be exactly one for every extension. So you should be able to have your content script communicate with the background page (there is a mechanism for this) and let the background page open the tab. For this, you'll have to write a fully-fledged extension though. The greasemonkey scripts probably don't generate a background page when they get converted into an extension at install-time.
DXL 17y ago
I always thought Google had a browser for the masses in mind with Chrome. Something that is easy to use, stable and fast: a good alternative for IE. User scripts are something for power users, who will always prefer Firefox. Won't this create the risk that average users will accept installing all kinds of scripts without much regard for security implications? User scripts are a powerful yet low-threshold tool which could easily lend itself to purposes such as identity theft.
- pyre 17y ago
  I'm a power user, but I use Chrome. I only fire up Firefox when I want to do something on a page that requires a Firefox extension (like HttpFox or MAFF). [edit] I would almost appreciate a Chrome/Chromium extension that adds a 'open this page in X browser' option so that I can open it in Firefox when I need to without needing to copy over the URL manually.
- bretthoerner 17y ago
  > power users, who will always prefer Firefox Why do you say that? Chrome has extension support, I'm not sure what unique feature Firefox will have left shortly.
  - technomancy 17y ago
    Chrome extensions are OK, but they're severely limited compared to what you can pull off with FF extensions: http://conkeror.org http://conkeror.org used to be implemented using only the FF extension mechanism. Chromium extensions cannot alter built-in UI elements, so you're stuck with the standard WIMP UI. It's the only thing keeping me on the Gecko platform.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      Out of curiosity, would this prevent a chrome equivalent of the SQLite manager?
  - sid0 17y ago
    Sane mouse wheel scrolling, by the looks of it.
Kilimanjaro 17y ago
I've been a big firefox fan since phoenix, but already moved to chrome for only one reason: Fastest...browser...evar
- sketerpot 17y ago
  Likewise, on both points. It hasn't got the polish of Firefox, and the extension ecosystem is a little rough, and I miss the intelligent URL completion from the Awesomebar, but Chrome wins in speed and stability, and those were enough to move me away from Firefox for all but a few sites. Speed is important.
  - reedlaw 17y ago
    Hasn't got what polish of Firefox? Firefox is buggy and has a kludgy UI. Chrome is way more polished.
    - sid0 17y ago
      Selecting multiple blocks of text. Scrolling with the mouse wheel. / for quick find (and ' for links). edit: I wonder if this is similar to the difference between Windows and Mac. Windows might be inconsistent in the small things (e.g. button padding), but it gets the large things right. Mac gets the small things right but the large things horribly, horribly wrong. Chrome seems to get the small things right too (e.g. tab animations), but overall Firefox does much better.
      - Estragon 17y ago
        Thanks, I didn't know about ' for links.
- MikeCapone 17y ago
  Chrome is the first browser that got me excited since I switched from IE to Firefox back in the day (or rather, phoenix and then Firebird...). Back in my Slackware days, I loved the rendering of Konqueror/KHTML, so when I got a Mac I started using Safari. I was good, but didn't really excite me. Just competent stuff.. But Chrome. Now that's pushing things forward! Firefox is so slow and bloated on the Mac, I only use it for Stumbleupon.
smokey_the_bear 17y ago
Does Chrome support scrolling to where you were on the page when you hit the back button yet? That was what made me switch back to firefox.
- reedlaw 17y ago
  It always has for me.
karlzt 17y ago
this is exactly what's going to make me switch from firefox to chromium
jackfoxy 17y ago
I only wish Chrome would add a second search box, like IE and FF do. I have never figured out how to get the keyword for another search engine (Wikipedia) to work satisfactorily in Chrome's combination url/search entry area.
- elidourado 17y ago
  Works for me. In preferences, manage search engines. All or most of the search engines you've used in the past should be there. Edit the keyword to the keyword of your choice (for Wikipedia I use "wp"). In the omni bar, type "wp", space, query, enter. Alternatively you can use a tab instead of a space and this makes it more obvious that you are searching.
  - jackfoxy 17y ago
    OK, so I update my search preferences to make "wp" the Wikipedia key word. (I think, ok, maybe "w" was too short or something.) Close the browser. Reopen. Check the options again. (Still there.) Type wp (so far so good, the Chrome hints drop-down looks like I'm going to hit Wikipedia) space, "San Francisco" (no quotes) ... and oops, the hints have changed to "Google Search" (as soon as I type the first character.
    - elidourado 17y ago
      That's puzzling. Don't know if it will help, but for reference I'm running the dev channel build on OS X.
      - jackfoxy 17y ago
        I'm running 4.0.249.78 (36714) on Win 7 64-bit right now (where I get a slightly different problem than I described), but my description is from the latest build on 32-bit Win 7. Hey I realize most of you guys like the single omni-box, (I consider it a waste of real estate), but at least make the second FireFox/IE type search box optional. Let the user decide.
ddemchuk 17y ago
Does not anyone else get really let down every time they read a Chrome submission that doesn't announce that Firebug has been ported over? I've started using Chrome for my day to day browsing, but I'll never be able to wholeheartedly switch until Firebug arrives.
- amandle 17y ago
  Chrome comes with the element inspector built in which replicates a lot of the functionality of Firebug.
  - markkanof 17y ago
    The element inspector is handy, but personally I would also need JavaScript step through debugging like Firebug provides.
    - tlrobinson 17y ago
      Have you actually tried WebKit's developer tools lately? It has a great DOM inspector (allows editing), network/script/rendering timeline, step-through debugger, profiler, cookie and local database inspector, and Chrome even has a heap analysis tool (see which objects are allocated). It's far better than Firebug, at least for JavaScript developers, IMO.
    - mhansen 17y ago
      Chrome has step through debugging. Check the 'Scripts' tab of the inspector
  - ddemchuk 17y ago
    The element inspector comes somewhat close, but you can't add css attributes to selectors, only modify existing ones, which really makes the thing useless when doing front end dev
    - tlrobinson 17y ago
      Are you sure? I think you can edit the text of stylesheets, and add new style properties on individual elements too.

116 points by sahaj 17y ago

I really do WANT to use Chrome, but there are so many Firefox extensions I just can't do without. One step closer though.

thorax 17y ago
They'll never have Tree Style Tabs I imagine, so I'm stuck forever with Firefox for that extension. Not that I mind Firefox, but Chrome gets to do a reboot and start again without carrying legacy support/etc with it. Early versions of Firefox felt "lighter" than IE to me for that reason.
- sketerpot 17y ago
  Remember when Firefox was the lightweight web browser? Of course it was called Phoenix back then, and later Firebird. It was refreshing.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Firefox was never a lightweight browser. It was fairly minimalist, especially compared with what came before it, but those things were just switched off or hidden, not removed, because that would have been a lot more work. It's probably only got more "lightweight" with time as they've had more opportunity and funding to optimise and actually remove things they don't use.

pyre 17y ago

Is the Chromium UserScripts page[1] out of date? Or are these still issues? Chromium does not support @require, @resource, unsafeWindow, GM_registerMenuCommand, GM_setValue, or GM_getValue. A lot of scripts that I come across use `unsafeWindow`, `GM_setValue` and `GM_getValue.` It seems to be updated (since the last time I looked at it), since I believe it used to say that @exclude was not implemented, and now I don't even see a mention of it on the page (though I don't think I've come across a script that used @exclude). [1]: http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/user-scripts http://dev.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/user-scr... [UPDATE] This should shine some light on the topic: http://www.greasespot.net/2009/11/greasemonkey-api-usage.html http://www.greasespot.net/2009/11/greasemonkey-api-usage.htm...

Semiapies 17y ago
None of my personal scripts (which all use @require or unsafeWindow) work on this. I've been meaning to convert them to Chrome extensions anyway, though.
aboodman 17y ago
Mostly up to date, but I freshened some things.
tung 17y ago
A Chrome-modified script I'm looking at uses `localStorage.setItem(name, value)` and `localStorage.getItem(name)` to re-implement `GM_setValue` and `GM_getValue`. The author stores and recovers type info as the first character of the data.

gkoberger 17y ago

The best part about this announcement is that Google Chrome won't be treating user scripts as second-class extensions. Greasemonkey scripts will be treated like real extensions. The ease of creating Greasemonkey scripts plus the visibility of real extensions in the browser takes Google Chrome a huge step closer to Firefox.

sri 17y ago

I have a Greasemonkey script in FF (http://defcraft.blogspot.com/2009/02/greasemonkey-search-helper.html http://defcraft.blogspot.com/2009/02/greasemonkey-search-hel...) that'll google for the current selection in a background tab when ALT-G is pressed. And it uses GM_openInTab API call. Its equivalent in Chrome seems to be chrome.tabs.create. But when I tried that, I get this error: "chrome.tabs is not supported in content scripts". It seems that these "content scripts" aren't as powerful as extensions (http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/content_scripts.html http://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/content_scripts.htm...). Am I missing something here?

joeyo 17y ago
I realize that this doesn't exactly address the root cause of your issue, but if you right click on selected text in Chrome, one of the menu entries will be to google for it in another tab.
statictype 17y ago
Yes. Chrome has different ways of extending the browser. One is content scripts - which don't have access to certain parts of the Chrome api like opening tabs. However, each extension can have what they call a background page. This is just an html page which is loaded in the background and there can be exactly one for every extension. So you should be able to have your content script communicate with the background page (there is a mechanism for this) and let the background page open the tab. For this, you'll have to write a fully-fledged extension though. The greasemonkey scripts probably don't generate a background page when they get converted into an extension at install-time.

DXL 17y ago

I always thought Google had a browser for the masses in mind with Chrome. Something that is easy to use, stable and fast: a good alternative for IE. User scripts are something for power users, who will always prefer Firefox. Won't this create the risk that average users will accept installing all kinds of scripts without much regard for security implications? User scripts are a powerful yet low-threshold tool which could easily lend itself to purposes such as identity theft.

pyre 17y ago
I'm a power user, but I use Chrome. I only fire up Firefox when I want to do something on a page that requires a Firefox extension (like HttpFox or MAFF). [edit] I would almost appreciate a Chrome/Chromium extension that adds a 'open this page in X browser' option so that I can open it in Firefox when I need to without needing to copy over the URL manually.
bretthoerner 17y ago
> power users, who will always prefer Firefox Why do you say that? Chrome has extension support, I'm not sure what unique feature Firefox will have left shortly.
- technomancy 17y ago
  Chrome extensions are OK, but they're severely limited compared to what you can pull off with FF extensions: http://conkeror.org http://conkeror.org used to be implemented using only the FF extension mechanism. Chromium extensions cannot alter built-in UI elements, so you're stuck with the standard WIMP UI. It's the only thing keeping me on the Gecko platform.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    Out of curiosity, would this prevent a chrome equivalent of the SQLite manager?
- sid0 17y ago
  Sane mouse wheel scrolling, by the looks of it.

Kilimanjaro 17y ago

I've been a big firefox fan since phoenix, but already moved to chrome for only one reason: Fastest...browser...evar

sketerpot 17y ago
Likewise, on both points. It hasn't got the polish of Firefox, and the extension ecosystem is a little rough, and I miss the intelligent URL completion from the Awesomebar, but Chrome wins in speed and stability, and those were enough to move me away from Firefox for all but a few sites. Speed is important.
- reedlaw 17y ago
  Hasn't got what polish of Firefox? Firefox is buggy and has a kludgy UI. Chrome is way more polished.
  - sid0 17y ago
    Selecting multiple blocks of text. Scrolling with the mouse wheel. / for quick find (and ' for links). edit: I wonder if this is similar to the difference between Windows and Mac. Windows might be inconsistent in the small things (e.g. button padding), but it gets the large things right. Mac gets the small things right but the large things horribly, horribly wrong. Chrome seems to get the small things right too (e.g. tab animations), but overall Firefox does much better.
    - Estragon 17y ago
      Thanks, I didn't know about ' for links.
MikeCapone 17y ago
Chrome is the first browser that got me excited since I switched from IE to Firefox back in the day (or rather, phoenix and then Firebird...). Back in my Slackware days, I loved the rendering of Konqueror/KHTML, so when I got a Mac I started using Safari. I was good, but didn't really excite me. Just competent stuff.. But Chrome. Now that's pushing things forward! Firefox is so slow and bloated on the Mac, I only use it for Stumbleupon.

smokey_the_bear 17y ago

Does Chrome support scrolling to where you were on the page when you hit the back button yet? That was what made me switch back to firefox.

reedlaw 17y ago
It always has for me.

karlzt 17y ago

this is exactly what's going to make me switch from firefox to chromium

jackfoxy 17y ago

I only wish Chrome would add a second search box, like IE and FF do. I have never figured out how to get the keyword for another search engine (Wikipedia) to work satisfactorily in Chrome's combination url/search entry area.

elidourado 17y ago
Works for me. In preferences, manage search engines. All or most of the search engines you've used in the past should be there. Edit the keyword to the keyword of your choice (for Wikipedia I use "wp"). In the omni bar, type "wp", space, query, enter. Alternatively you can use a tab instead of a space and this makes it more obvious that you are searching.
- jackfoxy 17y ago
  OK, so I update my search preferences to make "wp" the Wikipedia key word. (I think, ok, maybe "w" was too short or something.) Close the browser. Reopen. Check the options again. (Still there.) Type wp (so far so good, the Chrome hints drop-down looks like I'm going to hit Wikipedia) space, "San Francisco" (no quotes) ... and oops, the hints have changed to "Google Search" (as soon as I type the first character.
  - elidourado 17y ago
    That's puzzling. Don't know if it will help, but for reference I'm running the dev channel build on OS X.
    - jackfoxy 17y ago
      I'm running 4.0.249.78 (36714) on Win 7 64-bit right now (where I get a slightly different problem than I described), but my description is from the latest build on 32-bit Win 7. Hey I realize most of you guys like the single omni-box, (I consider it a waste of real estate), but at least make the second FireFox/IE type search box optional. Let the user decide.

ddemchuk 17y ago

Does not anyone else get really let down every time they read a Chrome submission that doesn't announce that Firebug has been ported over? I've started using Chrome for my day to day browsing, but I'll never be able to wholeheartedly switch until Firebug arrives.

amandle 17y ago
Chrome comes with the element inspector built in which replicates a lot of the functionality of Firebug.
- markkanof 17y ago
  The element inspector is handy, but personally I would also need JavaScript step through debugging like Firebug provides.
  - tlrobinson 17y ago
    Have you actually tried WebKit's developer tools lately? It has a great DOM inspector (allows editing), network/script/rendering timeline, step-through debugger, profiler, cookie and local database inspector, and Chrome even has a heap analysis tool (see which objects are allocated). It's far better than Firebug, at least for JavaScript developers, IMO.
  - mhansen 17y ago
    Chrome has step through debugging. Check the 'Scripts' tab of the inspector
- ddemchuk 17y ago
  The element inspector comes somewhat close, but you can't add css attributes to selectors, only modify existing ones, which really makes the thing useless when doing front end dev
  - tlrobinson 17y ago
    Are you sure? I think you can edit the text of stylesheets, and add new style properties on individual elements too.