I tried Vimium and found it lacking, which actually led me to Vimperator. If I remember correctly, though, Vimium allows you to set your own bindings so perhaps the emacs bindings are already out there somewhere.
Joel -----Original Message----- From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of David A. Faler Sent: Friday, August 06, 2010 8:41 AM To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Safari extensions Joel, You could try vimium [1] to get vi keybindings for Chrome. I haven't used it (I'm waiting for emacs bindings), but it might help make it usable for you. [1] http://github.com/philc/vimium Thank you, David Faler IT Quality Control and Testing The Library Corporation ----- "Joel Marchesoni" <jma...@email.wcu.edu> wrote: > 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:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf > Of Richard, Joel M > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:24 PM > To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU > 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) | richar...@si.edu > > > > ________________________________ > From: Raymond Yee <y...@berkeley.edu> > Reply-To: Code for Libraries <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> > Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:15:59 -0400 > To: <CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU> > 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<e...@hellman.net> > 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 > >> > >> e...@hellman.net > >> http://go-to-hellman.blogspot.com/ > >> @gluejar > >> > >> > > > -- --
