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

Project Gemini

geminiprotocol.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 194 posts

Re: Project Gemini

#181

Post by zzo38computer »

userbinator wrote: post #140

Maybe this is just me showing my age, but I don't understand why reinvent everything when you could just go back to something like HTML 2.0 or even 3.2 with some minor changes. I probably hate what happened with the "modern web" as much as the Gemini developers, but going full NIH is unlikely to be a good solution when there's an existing "unmodern web" to develop for, and as a bonus, can be experienced even with a m…

You are not the only one to suggest that.

I think there is benefit in having multiple approaches available, and that is one of them, but the other one is the other benefit.

Re: Project Gemini

#182

Post by astrange »

nine_k wrote: post #102
astrange wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean codenames. I mean literally saying the word "project". It's like meeting a friend and saying "hello my friend I've known for the last 20 years".

Compare: "We are working on Project Paperclip" and "We are working on a paperclip". I suppose the former implies that what you're working on is not a literal paperclip (but a secret operation to snatch scientists). So "Project Gemini" is not about, say, he constellation.

We would say "We're working on Paperclip."

Re: Project Gemini

#183

Post by prmoustache »

SchemaLoad wrote: post #134
prmoustache wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Images aren't prohibited. They are linked but can be shown.

Gemini users kind of have a meltdown if you try to implement any optional features. One browser implemented favicons and users were flaming the github issues demanding it be removed or they would implement IP blocks for any users requesting the favicon url. I tried to find the link but search results are drowned out by Google's Gemini.

By users in plural you mean a professionnal troll called Drew Devault who afaik isn't a gemini protocol user anymore.

Re: Project Gemini

#184

Post by SchemaLoad »

prmoustache wrote: post #183
SchemaLoad wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gemini users kind of have a meltdown if you try to implement any optional features. One browser implemented favicons and users were flaming the github issues demanding it be removed or they would implement IP blocks for any users requesting the favicon url. I tried to find the link but search results are drowned out by Google's Gemini.

By users in plural you mean a professionnal troll called Drew Devault who afaik isn't a gemini protocol user anymore.

That sounds about right. My memory of the thread is a bit fuzzy.

Re: Project Gemini

#185

Post by krapp »

shiomiru wrote: post #176
vbezhenar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that something like HTTP 1.1 is hard to implement. There are miriads of HTTP servers and clients. It has its quirks, for sure, but you can code basic implementation pretty easily. Now rendering HTML is completely another level of difficulty. If you ask me, I'd suggest to use Markdown instead of HTML for "simple web", but keep HTTP/1.1. Rendering Markdown is relatively simple and it's rich enough for a lo…

> Rendering Markdown is relatively simple Markdown is a superset of HTML, so your assertion cannot be true. But even an HTML-less subset is very hard to parse efficiently (or, at all ) because of the various grammatical ambiguities. And then there's the various competing definitions...

> And then there's the various competing definitions...

Someone always bring this up whenever a permutation of this thread comes up, but I don't see the problem. You choose a definition and make that the spec. Even Hacker News only supports a very limited subset of Markdown.

Re: Project Gemini

#186

Post by krapp »

voxic11 wrote: post #178
cantalopes wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like "they are good". Whole html with its features is "good", but when i want to use a privacy- first protocol, why the hell would i undermine it with tracking pixels, especially since it noted as the very feature of this protocol

There are plenty of ways to implement images without allowing for tracking pixels. Only allowing images to be served from first party domains would be a simple one.

It would be noisy and would break the page size limit but you could also require that images be included inline as base64 encoded strings.

Re: Project Gemini

#187

Post by tpoacher »

sundarurfriend wrote: post #148
tpoacher wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting outro. Interoperability is presumably one very big reason for this protocol. As for why, all I can say is, download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. It's one thing hearing about it and a completely different experience browsing the geminispace.

> download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. Well, I did, and I see "Expired Certificate - ... TLS certificate has expired" :(

Yes that's a site that I like because of the random site function, not geminispace as a whole. But just click past that.

Re: Project Gemini

#188

Post by [deleted] »

krapp wrote: post #186
voxic11 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of ways to implement images without allowing for tracking pixels. Only allowing images to be served from first party domains would be a simple one.

It would be noisy and would break the page size limit but you could also require that images be included inline as base64 encoded strings.

[deleted]

Re: Project Gemini

#189

Post by tpoacher »

rndmio wrote: post #160
tpoacher wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting outro. Interoperability is presumably one very big reason for this protocol. As for why, all I can say is, download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. It's one thing hearing about it and a completely different experience browsing the geminispace.

That was a terrible experience. For a start that site has an expired certificate, as do many of the pages it suggested, and of the pages that worked it was mostly people that dipped a toe in a few years ago and never came back or other broken function.

You're welcome, I guess? xD

Re: Project Gemini

#190

Post by tpoacher »

int_19h wrote: post #147
tpoacher wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting outro. Interoperability is presumably one very big reason for this protocol. As for why, all I can say is, download Lagrange, go to gemini://bleyble.com/cgi-bin/random, and see for yourself. It's one thing hearing about it and a completely different experience browsing the geminispace.

The different experience is largely thanks to different content, not different protocol. The protocol just serves a gatekeeping role to keep the community small enough.

That's true to some extent, but it's also true that the side-effect of the protocol is that it results in a very different community.

It's a bit like saying that the camping experience has nothing to do with not having access to electricity. Well, true but also not true.

Post reply on HN