Userscripts.org

+1

I see no reason to remove it.

+1 - leave it as it is

+1
1. keeping it hurts nothing
2. you may want to view source before installing a update (script auto updaters)
3. if you really wanted you could make a option to hide it

+1
The button hurts noone - nobody is forced to click it. But - as others already pointed out - it is a point for transparency. No such button available would encourage "bad people" even more to spread malware: Now they may say "hardly anybody can tell since most of the users either don't understand" - but without the button, it'd be worse: "hardly anybody can tell, since they not even know how to view it".

-/+1

For people who don't know javascript (which I would think is a large portion of users), the source would be jibberish anyway.

I have never hit the "View Source" button. But I have, on occassion, hit the "Edit" button once I download the script.

I'm impartial to it. I think it create too much confusion, but we may be creating a problem that doesn't exist.

+1

For all the reasons everyone else has said.

If you'd like to voice your opinion in regards to the future development of the Greasemonkey extension, please do it in the Greasemonkey Developer's Mailing List.

This forum is great, but the site is userscripts.org -- it is dedicated to all things user scripts (Be they in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, or anywhere else), not development of Greasemonkey specifically.

Despite Martii's tricky wording in his intial post, this issue has been brought up for *discussion* only. And, no big surprise, that was done on the development mailing list.

http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-dev...

There's only so much time we can dedicate to gathering feedback. I, personally, prefer to do that over email. It takes far too much of my time to sort out read/unread, replying in little forms like this, etc. Not to mention manually checking various websites.

arantius wrote:
Despite Martii's tricky wording in his intial post, this issue has been brought up for *discussion* only. And, no big surprise, that was done on the development mailing list.
http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-dev...

Since Marti asked me to vote, I will: +1

Keep the button. Don't show source to users who don't ask for it -- scares and confuses the non-nerds.

Everyone I know will view the source, no matter what it takes, but the button is a nice boon.

arantius wrote:
If you'd like to voice your opinion in regards to the future development of the Greasemonkey extension, please do it in the Greasemonkey Developer's Mailing List.
This forum is great, but the site is userscripts.org -- it is dedicated to all things user scripts (Be they in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, or anywhere else), not development of Greasemonkey specifically.
Despite Martii's tricky wording in his intial post, this issue has been brought up for *discussion* only. And, no big surprise, that was done on the development mailing list.
http://groups.google.com/group/greasemonkey-dev...
There's only so much time we can dedicate to gathering feedback. I, personally, prefer to do that over email. It takes far too much of my time to sort out read/unread, replying in little forms like this, etc. Not to mention manually checking various websites.

The Issue has not been created that I could find... and the dev list is closed-discussion as it is heavily moderated. People prefer a good community that they can speak their minds freely (not subject to your personal editing and deleting of other peoples posts too) and not be subject to brazen attitudes. I've done my best to keep this as neutral as possible by suppressing my findings... I'm still at 0 for it but tilting towards +0... I'm just trying to find a reason to tilt completely either way.

If you have a problem with wanting it in email turn on your email notifications here on USO and/or use a decent RSS feed Add-on that emails yourself.

+1

Speaking of more trickery

Anthony wrote:
P.S. If you do in fact navigate, read, review requires, then install your scripts: you're vulnerable to a security hole. The install step will (/ can be forced to) download the required resource a second time, and the server can choose to deliver a second, evil, payload on that second download. Whereas reviewing the files on your disk mean you're reviewing that which might actually be executed.

I think the button doesn't harm people who don't need it (like me, most of the time) and is there for those who make use of it... unless you developers really need that piece of real estate for some other buttons that takes priority, I would leave it there.
Anyway I think greasemonkey is still a somewhat geekish sort of resource, so most of the users know what's there for and what's its use.

In short:
I'd Keep it.

A concern in the dev list that seems to be somewhat overlooked and underexamined is what about pages or i/frames that force a page reload in a different tab/window after a user has installed a script?

If a script is immediately installed without some available intervention and allowed to execute... Kiss, at the very least, your Mozilla profile goodbye along with privacy and at the most deletion/modification of known paths on the system depending on preexisting GM preferences.

I think those comments just pushed me to +1 to keep the current method of reviewing... Food for thought. :)

Removing the feature would take more away from Greasemonkey than give back, so I agree that it should stay (+1).

However saying that, the functionality being revised could also be a good idea :)

Marti wrote:
People prefer a good community that they can speak their minds freely (not subject to your personal editing and deleting of other peoples posts too) and not be subject to brazen attitudes.

Yeah, this site is definitely more accessible than a google group (which is apparently moderated??).

@arantius: As the lead developer of GM, you have a responsibility to the community to be neutral and to consider all voices. If you don't, it will surely lose valuable members or even collapse.

Avindra V.G. wrote:
Yeah, this site is definitely more accessible than a google group

arantius wrote:
This forum is great, but the site is userscripts.org -- it is dedicated to all things user scripts (Be they in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, or anywhere else),

NV wrote:
The idea is to show source code right below the "Install script?" dialog.

sizzlemctwizzle wrote:
in their face.

If syntax coloring is that important it's quite possible (and easy) to wrap the displayed user.js in a html jacket and then anyone can choose whatever coloring they want by designing their own user.js or using an existing one. This is where a derivative of your code to "combine" scripts could come in handy btw. This would also alleviate the issue of not knowing what file is what in the temp folder.

Most Nix/Mac editors are fully customizable on their feature sets but Windows is a problem area.

Before anything else, reread Martii's top post, and consider whether the setting of this thread is neutral or if it made you believe that Greasemonkey is about to lose the ability to peruse source code prior to running a new script you are considering to install.

That is not the case.

I'll attempt to be brief and to the point.

I am the other maintainer of Greasemonkey.

All of Greasemonkey is going through a large, long overdue overhaul, after a long period mostly asleep.

Greasemonkey-dev is where things going on with Greasemonkey gets discussed prior to larger changes, so we don't wreck stuff.

Constructive discussion is going on there, as always. We are not overlooking pageloads during script installation.

Spending time, like here, on setting misleading propaganda straight is the exact opposite of constructive, and only delays progress and wastes time and attention. (Yours, too!)

Marti is the only person ever to have been banned from Greasemonkey-dev (back when Aaron Boodman was still a maintainer too), for persisting with bad tone and repeatedly wrecking discussion climate, not all unlike in this thread. No other person has ever been moderated.

When Marti is drumming up dissent here for anything about Greasemonkey, you may stop for a moment to consider what amount of trust you place with the source, if facts are well represented or skewed, and if this is the place to discuss it.

We are passionate about making stuff better. If everybody enters discussion actually believing that, climate improves, less time is wasted on argument, signal to noise ratios sky-rocket, as focus turns to contributing perspectives individuals might miss -- over bickering about stuff.

I am near certain of two things: Marti will spend even more time on a rigorous rebuttal -- and those working on Gresemonkey will return to spending their time on Greasemonkey.

Marti wrote:
I don't think there would be enough room anyhow to do that in a modal dialog even with scroll bars.

+1

Marti wrote:
then why did you already have your personal branch with this commit completed almost simultaneously already?

I'm +1 but this forum is biased I think, and the post that started the thread was a majorly loaded question, so I don't think a vote here really matters much, the votes that matter most won't bother with us. So what matters most are ideas, and those are best shared in the gm-dev mailing list.

Johan Sundström wrote:
No other person has ever been moderated.

As we are on USO soil under the Banana Bar... I can directly tell you that you are full of it... consistent... but still full of it.

The dev list thread is quite clear on what was "forgotten" and hind site is always 20/20... had I not raised valid questions for people to think about, Anthony would have just casually slipped in a major flaw with GM... you also admitted this as well on the dev-list thread in not so many words.

I'm glad that you finally showed up and expressed your opinion as it's also welcome. It is unfortunate that certain members feel the need to micro-manage on the dev list along with the editing of peoples posts on GitHub.

As ScriptKeeper mentioned, this is a non-binding vote... the title of this post is actually a survey. Transparency on the project has still not been achieved. Mostly Anthony continues to scare away more contributors even more then when I have a solid opinion on something. I get continual complaints all around about Anthony and I'm done defending him. Having a good community here is much more reliable then the dev-list due to personal preferences of whether or not responses come in email. I discussed earlier today about how irresponsible Anthony has been and how consistent you have been and the entire team agreed when presented with all of this evidence. It's too lengthy to get into and quite a bit off topic, but this is the banana bar.

Btw.. I'm still fond of your quote

Johan Sundström wrote:
He still thinks I have a personal vendetta with him...It's probably just some autism; Marti's perseverence is useful, when it is well guided, and very counter-useful when not.

Erik Vold wrote:
the post that started the thread was a majorly loaded question,

Erik Vold wrote:
So what matters most are ideas

It doesn't happen often, but I am getting tired of these occasions where Marti, Johan Sundström and arantius air their dirty laundry on these forums. I don't care much for the politics of these discussions, and I don't know how much other users of uso do either. Clearly there is history here and it can be found by anyone who is interested in it, but it seems counter-productive every time that it is brought up (although the productivity of the original point is usually brought into question every time anyway).

This question does seem to be aimed at a very specific group of people; it is notable to me that out of every reply in this topic, only one has come from a user who has no scripts on uso. This group of people may very well be a different group to the people who would comment on the developers mailing list, but it still seems to be a selection of technically minded people. I can say from my experience with my own scripts that a vast majority of Greasemonkey users are clearly not at all technical, and I believe that those are the people whose opinions would be more useful on the topic in hand; anyone who can write a script can also find the source code if they so wish, so the button is at best a useful shortcut for these users.

But my point is that we really don't need these back and forths between the Greasemonkey Development community on these forums; they have never gone anywhere in the past, and I doubt they'll go anywhere in this case or in the future.

Marti wrote:
Part of growing up for the younger generation is to realize that questions are just questions.

Off topic: Marti you contribute a lot buddy, but you need to practice self-restraint, if you can demonstrate that for long enough then I'm sure you'd be let back in to the list and all would be forgotten, and we could all move on. Please try, wrong as anyone may be.

znerp wrote:
but I am getting tired of these occasions where Marti, Johan Sundström and arantius air their dirty laundry on these forums.

There are still a ton of ideas in here and not every one is interested in the topic nor do they always pay attention to the banana bar. At least 13 invites went out to people that didn't have scripts btw... absentee rate is high it would seem.

You were invited as I know you stand your ground in communications and won't take any b.s... so thanks for pointing this out. :)

Erik Vold wrote:
but you need to practice self-restraint

As far as "being let back into" the dev list for GM... no thanks. I do my contribs mostly with Mozilla and I'm highly appreciated. :)

Erik Vold wrote:
try to be unbiased.