5 ms·
Good suggestion, although I would propose to use FireMonkey instead of Tempermonkey/Violentmonkey as the former is more lightweight and privacy friendly than th
by user764743 6y ago
Good suggestion, although I would propose to use FireMonkey instead of Tempermonkey/Violentmonkey as the former is more lightweight and privacy friendly than the latter.
If you are interested, here's an article: https://www.ghacks.net/2019/09/10/firemonkey-uses-firefoxs-official-api-for-userscripts-and-userstyles/ https://www.ghacks.net/2019/09/10/firemonkey-uses-firefoxs-o...
- kekebo 6y agoFor some reason the usescript script only works with Violentmonkey but not FireMonkey for me. (FF 76.0.1)
- livre 6y agoTampermonkey is the one that has privacy issues but what's the problem with Violentmonkey?
- Normille 6y agoI use Yandex Browser [Chromium-based] so, unfortunately, FireMonkey isn't an option. The article you linked to is quite vague as to what the security implications might be. It says that FireMonkey extensions run in a sandbox. But you're still being asked the usual "This extension wants to see and modify your data on all websites.." [or whatever the exact wording is]. So, you're still letting the installed scripts have access to your browsing. One good thing about <whatever>Monkey and userscripts is that they make it trivially easy to inspect the scripts and see what exactly is being done. Whereas a browser extension is more of a 'black box'. So, there is more potential to spot potentially nefarious code in a userscript.js.