Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemini is Solutionism

xn--gckvb8fzb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 227 posts

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#171

Post by foxfluff »

sangnoir wrote: post #167
foxfluff wrote: post #114

> Bottom line is, if you agree that the modern web has become an awful place, let’s work on changing that for everyone, instead of abandoning it like a bunch of billionaires trying to escape to a different place, before this one collapses. The implication being that the web can be changed? I don't believe that, I believe the web is broken and it's only getting worse by the day. I'm not going to discourage you from tr…

> The implication being that the web can be changed? Yes - the slice you visit can be changed for you by using the right user-agent (as suggested in TFA). > When I browse the gemini space, I'm guaranteed to not be flooded with ads, harmful javascript, etcetra Why can't gemini space be defined by "Content-type: text/gemini" sites linking to each other and/or a limited functionality browser that doesn't render content…

> Yes - the slice you visit can be changed for you by using the right user-agent (as suggested in TFA).

It's hard to call it the web if your user agent doesn't support the web technologies.

> Why can't gemini space be defined by "Content-type: text/gemini" sites linking to each other and/or a limited functionality browser that doesn't render content you don't like?

As far as I care, it could be.

The end result would be more or less the same: people would have this new format and a new bunch of applications that aren't compatible with the web. I'm not really interested in bikeshedding minor implementation details of that level.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#172

Post by akkartik »

cxr wrote: post #166
akkartik wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I just axiomatically disagree with this sort of control-obsessed, zero-sum thinking. Good ideas have always had to compete with other new ideas in addition with incumbent old ones. There is always an organizational challenge in addition to the technical one. If whatever you want to happen is threatened by Gemini, it's not good enough. If you want to wait until everyone else stops trying new ideas, please say he…

I don't know what you mean by "control-obsessed", and I'm not a zero-summer generally, but zero-summability is relevant to what's going on with Gemini. A person who spends 250 man-hours working on Gemini is not going to get that back. Likewise, a project that would have benefited from that person's enthusiasm had Gemini not existed is not going to. > If whatever you want to happen is threatened by Gemini I don't thin…

> I don't think you're conceptualizing the criticism correctly. This is not "B is better than A". This is a case where B never comes along because A exists.

This risk is omnipresent in the universe. We never know what possible futures we cut off when we make a fork in the road. You don't ever step into the same river twice. However, this risk also applies to the projects you like. If we all worried about this we'd not do anything. Rhetoric like "Gemini sucking the air out of the room," "person who spends 250 hours working on Gemini," "it's like voluntourism," -- I could just as well replace Gemini with triplescripts throughout your comments.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#173

Post by CyberRabbi »

immibis wrote: post #145
CyberRabbi wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can build a minimal browser that uses HTTP and only renders special markdown files. You can use the Accept header to send special markdown to these minimal browsers and minimal HTML to normal browsers. A new protocol is unnecessary to accomplish the goals you mentioned.

Congratulations, you've invented Gemini with HTTP syntax. Since it's incompatible anyway, why does it need to be HTTP syntax?

It wouldn’t be incompatible if it took advantage of the Accept header.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#174

Post by reidrac »

2pEXgD0fZ5cF wrote: post #122

This post made me pretty interested in gemini. Since there are apparently a few users here: What server would you recommend to get started? Any small tutorials on setting up a gemini site? Any links to gemini sites (maybe your own) you want to share?

This is a good resource: http://geminiquickst.art/

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#175

Post by The_Colonel »

Alekhine wrote: post #97
The_Colonel wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having this as a priority nicely demonstrates how dev-centric and user-ignorant this project is.

Is that so wrong? Must everything we create be for the masses to consume?

It's not wrong, it just demonstrates how super niche it is.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#176

Post by iszomer »

piaste wrote: post #147
DarylZero wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. It's similar to how, here in HN comments, you cannot embed a giant 300MB javascript advertisement monstrosity. Or even just an image. If people could do that, then the space would be destroyed by malicious actors. What if we eliminate HN and do the communication P2P? Where author hosts own content. How can I as author still guarantee you as reader that I won't do that? One answer is to publish over Gemini.

I wonder if instead of Minimal HTTP, it would have been more effective to create a Minimal ActivityPub instead.

I think if you want to further limit yourself than Gemini yet maintain some of the semblance of the existing modern web, you can go the Beaker Browser [1] route.

[1] https://beakerbrowser.com/

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#177

Post by NoGravitas »

_heimdall wrote: post #152
robalni wrote: post #129

> The question here shouldn’t be why not to use a subset of HTTP and HTML, but rather, why not build on top of HTTP with a different markup layer other than HTML. We have APIs using HTTP with JSON instead of HTML, for example. As you can read in the Gemini FAQ, the reason that Gemini is not compatible with HTTP is that it should be possible to know that when you browse Gemini content, you will stay in gemini content.…

Is there actually a good way for Gemini as a protocol to make linking to an HTTP site harder? I don't think the protocol actually limits the type of link on a Gemini page, and if I click on an HTTP link in an app my OS will just pop it up in a web browser without a problem. Yes I'd know the app changed, but I'm not sure that would really help guard me from following a link to the current web

It is common for Gemini clients to represent HTTP links differently from Gemini or Gopher links, so the user can make an informed choice before clicking.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#178

Post by NoGravitas »

gerikson wrote: post #82
eternityforest wrote: post #13

Having a new protocol has value for the same reason HAM does. You hope that the character of the content itself will be interesting enough to be it's own subculture. Unfortunately it looks somewhat nontrivial to use and unnecessarily different from everything else without offering any true new features. All it has is the content and culture. It's also yet another privacy at all costs project. Which is fine, but I fee…

I'd start by checking out Antenna: https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/warmedal.se/~antenna/ It's an aggregator of sorts, but with a bit of a twist. Clients, for the terminal I recommend Amfora https://github.com/makeworld-the-better-one/amfora and Lagrange is a great GUI client https://github.com/skyjake/lagrange Communication, there's an informal way of addressing other gemlogs using 'RE: '. It's fraught with issues, as…

There is also a Usenet group, news:comp.infosystems.gemini.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#179

Post by cxr »

akkartik wrote: post #172
cxr wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what you mean by "control-obsessed", and I'm not a zero-summer generally, but zero-summability is relevant to what's going on with Gemini. A person who spends 250 man-hours working on Gemini is not going to get that back. Likewise, a project that would have benefited from that person's enthusiasm had Gemini not existed is not going to. > If whatever you want to happen is threatened by Gemini I don't thin…

> I don't think you're conceptualizing the criticism correctly. This is not "B is better than A". This is a case where B never comes along because A exists. This risk is omnipresent in the universe. We never know what possible futures we cut off when we make a fork in the road. You don't ever step into the same river twice. However, this risk also applies to the projects you like. If we all worried about this we'd no…

No, you could only do that if the basis of my comment were about generic, FOMO-driven hand-wringing, where A is unbound, so substitute any A and the criticism remains true. That's not what we're talking about. The criticism involves the observation that Gemini, specifically, is bad.

Re: Gemini is Solutionism

#180

Post by akkartik »

cxr wrote: post #179
akkartik wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think you're conceptualizing the criticism correctly. This is not "B is better than A". This is a case where B never comes along because A exists. This risk is omnipresent in the universe. We never know what possible futures we cut off when we make a fork in the road. You don't ever step into the same river twice. However, this risk also applies to the projects you like. If we all worried about this we'd no…

No, you could only do that if the basis of my comment were about generic, FOMO-driven hand-wringing, where A is unbound, so substitute any A and the criticism remains true. That's not what we're talking about. The criticism involves the observation that Gemini, specifically, is bad.

If Gemini specifically is bad, you should be able to argue that without making these other arguments that apply to any new project. Convince people they shouldn't care about it. So far I haven't found that side compelling. If you concentrate your energies there, I might.
Post reply on HN