Feed Sign in with OpenID OpenID

Simon Willison’s Weblog

Greasemonkey FUD

Wow, that didn’t take long. Via the Greasemonkey mailing list, Forrester Research have released a report entitled Greasemonkey Primes Firefox For Embarrassment. I have no intention of paying the $49 asking price for the full 3 page report (!), but here’s the executive summary:

Eager Web users downloaded Firefox more than 25 million times in the 100 days following its public release—and they did it without waiting for IT or anyone else to tell them to. So it’s safe to assume many of these self-directed go-getters are going to run out and download the latest Firefox extension, Greasemonkey, and start using it to streamline the way they browse. But IT managers beware: Greasemonkey will cause you nothing but headaches, and may even be a good reason to delay that Firefox pilot you’re planning.

For Microsoft’s sake, let’s hope Forrester don’t find out about GreasemonkIE ;) On a more serious note, tools like Greasemonkey are a fantastic way of fixing issues with the atrocious interfaces found in many “enterprise” web applications. Workers who use Greasemonkey to improve their productivity by fixing problems with internal applications should be applauded. I wonder if the Forrester report touches on the many benefits of browser-based site customisation. The title would suggest not.

Update: For comparison, it’s interesting to note that a previous report from the same author cautiously commends Firefox for providing some tangible benefits over Microsoft’s Internet Explorer and suggests businesses re-code all external-facing Web content to work with Firefox. With that in mind, crying FUD may be unwarranted.

Posted 14th April 2005 at 1:07 pm

This is Greasemonkey FUD by Simon Willison, posted on 14th April 2005.

Tagged ,

View blog reactions

Next: Safari 1.3 has a JavaScript Console

Previous: Greasemonkey etiquette

18 comments

  1. ... So it's safe to assume many of these self-directed go-getters are going to run out and download the latest Firefox extension, Greasemonkey, and start using it to streamline the way they browse.

    Well, the best apps are only as good as the data behind them, this is the same. He/they can go on and say what they want, but that assumption is pretty thin, IMO.

    Mike P. - 14th April 2005 13:16 - #

  2. I guess you are underestimating the kind of dumb users are there in company who needs handholding at each time. [At my current company, we are not allowed to modify Start Menu, guess why!]Support Desk will go nuts if People will call for problems which can not be reproduced by Support desk! JD

    JD - 14th April 2005 14:06 - #

  3. I definitely see your point... It just seems to me that there is a huge gap between downloading an open source browser (because maybe the person doesn't want to use IE, for example) to downloading an extension such as GM. But experience tells me that this will be an issue regardless...

    Mike P. - 14th April 2005 14:27 - #

  4. I really need to finish that worlds of web dev entry.

    Greasemonkey = decentralized control = Big Corp IT fear.

    My CIO just recently definitively said there will never be a corporate wiki. He can't support it, so he won't spend any money on it.

    Sad.

    Jeremy Dunck - 14th April 2005 14:28 - #

  5. Another thing:

    If you are not completely satsified with your research document for any reason, you can return it for a full refund within three weeks of your online purchase.

    So it should be safe to buy it. ;-)

    Jeremy Dunck - 14th April 2005 14:31 - #

  6. Ah, this'll be why they added XPIs to the list of files blocked by the corporate firewall...

    Olly - 14th April 2005 14:35 - #

  7. I like how they use the word "Embarrassment" in the headline, as if Firefox is some sort of corporate entity that could be embarrassed by a public relations snafu.

    Michael Moncur - 14th April 2005 15:44 - #

  8. This sounds like the GNU advice not to customise emacs...

    Senji - 14th April 2005 15:46 - #

  9. Actually, the better parallel is the assertion that Apple doesn't matter because it only has 3% market share, and doesn't succeed as a desktop in the enterprise.

    You needn't allow XPI installs (though I think you should). If IT shops are so scared about extensions breaking supportability, why not make and deploy an extension whose purpose is to verify which extensions are installed, and have policy that says "if you have unauthorized extensions, don't call us with web-related issues"?

    Jeremy Dunck - 14th April 2005 16:49 - #

  10. Eager Web users downloaded Firefox more than 25 million times in the 100 days following its public release - and they did it without waiting for IT or anyone else to tell them to.

    Well if IT didn't want them doing that, IT shouldn't have let them. If a company lets their employees download and install whatever they like, they've got more serious problems than Firefox extensions.

    Jim - 14th April 2005 20:04 - #

  11. I wonder, what Forrester has to say about the Google Toolbar, which also "enhances" the browsing experience.

    Jonas M Luster - 15th April 2005 06:40 - #

  12. There's a 101 techical and logical arguments that could be used to to counter this, perhaps beginning with "Java Runtime Primes Windows for Embarrassment", all of which seem fundamentally futile as the target audience will respond better to "fear and loathing" than "good sense", which is always at a disadvantage as it requires the listeners attention and willingness to understand.

    Long term the Greasemonkey (or similar) is inevitable so perhaps that's consolation enough.

    But it would be nice, at least from the point of view of satisfaction, to have a response to this type of material that the target audience can absorb and bring a level of accountability to organisations like Forrester. Wouldn't it be nice if result #2 on Google for "Greasemonkey" was "Forrester gets it wrong... again". Just subliminal ;)

    Harry Fuecks - 15th April 2005 14:33 - #

  13. There were a couple responses on Redmonk's blogs, a competitor of Forrester.

    Niether is directly refuting the report, but both are pointing and saying "ha ha!".

    Jeremy Dunck - 15th April 2005 15:17 - #

  14. well, i can't actually refute it without paying Forrester some money, so that's out ;)

    but suffice to say that while enterprises should have some concerns about GM, i agree with other commenters in that

    1. GM is hardly the only Firefox extension - or application for that matter - that poses such a risk
    2. GM could be a HUGE boon to beleaguered IT staffs with portal type applications, as it allows users (technical users, yes, but users nonetheless) to do some things on their own
    3. it's inevitable. call it AutoLink, GM, whatever - the technology is coming one way or another, and instead of trying to fight the tide folks might want to see about building some boats
    either way, i'm loving GM. got an idea for a fantasy baseball script of my own when i get a spare minute, and that's just the beginning.

    stephen o'grady - 15th April 2005 16:31 - #

  15. Forrester reports are just a hair better than useless.

    tom sherman - 17th April 2005 01:05 - #

  16. well, i can't actually refute it without paying Forrester some money, so that's out ;)

    Good trick, innit?

    Aaron - 11th May 2005 05:21 - #

  17. Jeremy writes: "Greasemonkey = decentralized control = Big Corp IT fear"

    I very much doubt corps would fear Greasemonkey if they knew its simplicity. I mean, really it doesn't appear to offer much other than customising a window on a website, right? Its power to combine output from several sites is hardly going to raise alarm bells, seeing as the underlying data is still ultimately controllable by whoever releases it onto the web.

    I think the problem (if there is one) is that Greasemonkey has been rather over-estimated, and a bit over-hyped (sorry Simon)! All this talk of "handing control to the people" is a bit idealistic, and feels rather overblown.

    As for the support issues raised by Greasemonkey - I wholeheartedly agree that it will pose headaches to corp support teams. For this reason, I rather hope GM extensions do _not_ become ubiquitous.

    I don't mean to sound anti-progressive. I simply feel that the best way to tackle the "atrocious interfaces found in many enterprise web applications" is to contact the designers and help them resolve the situation. Then they will make better applications in the future. How will applications improve if the users silently hack away to resolve design problems which should be reported and fixed centrally?

    Since Simon is referring to internal applications, the ideal solution would be for everyone to use the supported browser. Most companies enforce this anyway, to reduce the support nightmare caused by the use of alternate browsers.

    Chris Beach - 25th May 2005 19:19 - #

  18. Altering web sites with client scripts is not new. I was already doing this in MSIE 4 in 1998 thanks to Web Accessories. See Internet Explorer Web Accessories overview and Browser Extensions.

    With IE4 (may be early release of IE5 too), there was even a simple flag to switch to enable edit mode for the currently displayed web page. I was using that to quickly alter hidden form fields.

    What is new with GM, in comparison to Web Accessories, is auto-execution of scripts based on URL, and easy management of user scripts.

    But I don't (or don't want to) understand the fear of IT departements: every web developer already knew that web clients could not be trusted.

    Olivier Mengue - 11th July 2005 13:09 - #

Comments are closed.

Previously hosted at http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2005/04/14/fud

A django site