Using Greasemonkey scripts with Google Chrome
Max Glenister
This isn’t new news, but it’s something I’ve found quite useful.
You can use userscripts created for Firefox/Greasemonkey in Google Chrome. Many of the scripts that you can find over on userscripts.org can be used effortlessly by Google Chrome, and once installed can be disabled/uninstalled from the Extensions tab.
The bit that I’ve found useful is that you can install any userscript in Google Chrome simply by naming giving it the correct information, and naming it in the right way.
The instructions are as follows:
Your script needs the userscript meta information at the top of the file
// ==UserScript==
// @name Some Awesome Script
// @namespace Supporting website/authors website
// @description Description of the scripts functions
// @include Url of the website to apply to, wildcard
// @match The same as @include really
// @require Additional script/library from site or path
// ==/UserScript==
You need to name the file something like some-awesome-script_1-0.user.js
Chrome hasn’t supported this method of installation for a while now. To install userscripts in Chrome now you will have to use Tampermonkey
Information sources:
Mentioned elsewhere on this site
- prev/next to left/right arrow key bind userscript
This is a userscript for Google Chrome (here’s how to use userscripts in Chrome; it might work with Firefox/Greasemonkey but I haven’t tested).
Related posts
- Updates to my 'install all firefox' bash script for Mac OS X
I wrote briefly about my install-all-firefox shell script back in December last year. Since then the script has received a complete rewrite, and some new features.
- Grooveshark view-modes userscript for Fluidapp/Chrome/GreaseMonkey
I’ve created a userscript to give the Grooveshark website some view modes. This is specifically for use with Fluid, but I imagine it would work okay with Chrome/etc too. More information about the userscript/setup after the break!
- Merge Commits Are Just Noise
Run git log --graph on most team projects and you’ll see the problem. Parallel lines everywhere, merge commits that just say “Merge branch ‘feature/x’ into develop”. None of it useful. It’s noise. (Merges aren’t the only source: an hourly GitHub Action was quietly doing the same to my own history.) I’ve been using a rebase-based workflow for years to avoid this. The history stays linear and the diffs stay readable. This post covers both the argument and the specific branch structure I use for team feature work.
Discussion
No interactions yet
Join the conversation
Reply from your own site with a Webmention (how?).