Honestly I try to switch to Chrome every month or so, but it just doesn't do what Firefox does for me. I've actually been using a Firefox mod called Pale Moon [1] that takes out some of the not so useful features for work (parental controls, etc) and optimizes for current processors. It's not a huge speed increase, but it is definitely noticeable.

Oh, and Chrome doesn't have Vimperator [2] :)

Joel

[1] http://www.palemoon.org/
[2] http://vimperator.org/

-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard, Joel M
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Safari extensions

If I remember correctly, the latest versions of Firefox had problems, but I don't know if it's related to performance necessarily. More like bloat. http://bit.ly/c1c3m1

Either way, I definitely find Firefox too slow to use after the switch to Chrome, which took all of 5 minutes to completely convert me. If Chrome were a drug, I'd be strung out and living on the streets. But what's to say it won't head the same way as Firefox in the future (bloat-wise.)

It's also a memory hog, especially when you load up Firebug. Chrome's debugging tools are like a dream come true.  That said, I'm not that kind of developer, so I won't be able to help port any extensions to Chrome or Safari. Testing, yes, porting, no. :)


--Joel

Joel Richard
IT Specialist, Web Services Division
Smithsonian Institution Libraries | http://www.sil.si.edu/
(202) 633-1706 | (202) 786-2861 (f) | [log in to unmask]



________________________________
From: Raymond Yee <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Code for Libraries <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:15:59 -0400
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Safari extensions

Has anyone given thought to how hard it would be to port Firefox
extensions such as LibX and  Zotero to Chrome or Safari?  (Am I the only
one finding Firefox to be very slow compared to Chrome?)

-Raymond

On 8/5/10 1:10 PM, Godmar Back wrote:
> No, nothing beyond a quick read-through.
>
> The architecture is similar to Google Chrome's - which is perhaps not
> surprising given that both Safari and Chrome are based on WebKit -
> which for us at LibX means we should be able to leverage the redesign
> we did for LibX 2.0.
>
> A notable characteristic of this architecture is that content scripts
> that interact with a page are in a separate OS process from the "main"
> extensions' code, thus they have to communicate with the main
> extension via message passing rather than by exploiting direct method
> calls as in Firefox.
>
>   - Godmar
>
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Eric Hellman<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>> Has anyone played with the new Safari extensions capability? I'm looking at you, Godmar.
>>
>>
>> Eric Hellman
>> President, Gluejar, Inc.
>> 41 Watchung Plaza, #132
>> Montclair, NJ 07042
>> USA
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/
>> @gluejar
>>
>>


--