3 ms·

I seem to remember TamperMonkey being on there but not ViolentMonkey, which I didn't agree with. However, I see neither of them on there. Both are available but

I seem to remember TamperMonkey being on there but not ViolentMonkey, which I didn't agree with. However, I see neither of them on there. Both are available but not recommended. I wonder what is going on with that.

culi 2mo ago
Probably just resources. Mozilla has to vet each update to give them the "recommended" badge and so they probably focus on the most popular extensions
- benatkin 2mo ago
  They should have vetted ViolentMonkey instead of TamperMonkey the last time around.
  - embedding-shape 2mo ago
    > Tampermonkey - Rating 4.7 (5,306 reviews) - 760,294 Users > Violentmonkey - Rating 4.7 (793 reviews) - 164,622 Users On Google Web Store, it's 11,000,000 users VS 900,000 users. Their popularity seems different by a magnitude, hardly surprising Firefox/Mozilla would chose to focus on one above the other.
    - culi 2mo ago
      I see GP's point tho. The original Greacemonkey was open-sourced. Tampermonkey was the successor and is proprietary. Violentmonkey came to fix that. I wouldn't be surprised if Mozilla rejected TM because of not being OS and rejected VM because of lack of popularity
      - embedding-shape 2mo ago
        I get what you mean, and it'd be cool if "Recommended" was only for FOSS, but I don't think that ever been the case? Probably lots of the "Recommended" extensions are proprietary, from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?promoted=recommended&type=extension https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?promoted=re... you don't get far before hitting one, the 3rd extension already is proprietary out of those, surely more.
      - krick 2mo ago
        I still just use Greasemonkey. What is even the point of both successors on Firefox?
VCFundedGenYer 2mo ago
FireMonkey is the one to use. Not verified, but that doesn't matter.
eek2121 2mo ago
I suspect they no longer recommend either because either can download/execute scripts that Mozilla can't review, and the recommended extensions are reviewed, so they don't want to give users the wrong impression. I could be wrong, however.
- DANmode 2mo ago
  I suspect it’s because it’s a pain to review that type of codebase, and they update it decently often.

culi 2mo ago

Probably just resources. Mozilla has to vet each update to give them the "recommended" badge and so they probably focus on the most popular extensions

benatkin 2mo ago
They should have vetted ViolentMonkey instead of TamperMonkey the last time around.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago
  > Tampermonkey - Rating 4.7 (5,306 reviews) - 760,294 Users > Violentmonkey - Rating 4.7 (793 reviews) - 164,622 Users On Google Web Store, it's 11,000,000 users VS 900,000 users. Their popularity seems different by a magnitude, hardly surprising Firefox/Mozilla would chose to focus on one above the other.
  - culi 2mo ago
    I see GP's point tho. The original Greacemonkey was open-sourced. Tampermonkey was the successor and is proprietary. Violentmonkey came to fix that. I wouldn't be surprised if Mozilla rejected TM because of not being OS and rejected VM because of lack of popularity
    - embedding-shape 2mo ago
      I get what you mean, and it'd be cool if "Recommended" was only for FOSS, but I don't think that ever been the case? Probably lots of the "Recommended" extensions are proprietary, from https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?promoted=recommended&type=extension https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?promoted=re... you don't get far before hitting one, the 3rd extension already is proprietary out of those, surely more.
    - krick 2mo ago
      I still just use Greasemonkey. What is even the point of both successors on Firefox?

VCFundedGenYer 2mo ago

FireMonkey is the one to use. Not verified, but that doesn't matter.

eek2121 2mo ago

I suspect they no longer recommend either because either can download/execute scripts that Mozilla can't review, and the recommended extensions are reviewed, so they don't want to give users the wrong impression. I could be wrong, however.

DANmode 2mo ago
I suspect it’s because it’s a pain to review that type of codebase, and they update it decently often.