Live data from Hacker News

Poor Man's Web

zserge.com

61–70 of 82 posts

Re: Poor Man's Web

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what do you make of books, then? This webpage is not a book. It has a different purpose. With a book, I know what it contains, where it's leading to, usually they have an abstract for this. I have nothing against Gemini and the people in general, I'm just saying the limitation is not working well for every type of text. Pictures and a bit more structure would be useful for the boring informative texts.

Webpages aren't as monocultural as books, though. There are webpages that have interactive 3D models (which physical books can't). There are webpages that are basically books though. Some webpages will port well to gemtext, some will not. The purpose isn't to replace HTML. The purpose is to make long-form uninterrupted text a first-class citizen by forcing other elements to be second-class citizens.

> Webpages aren't as monocultural as books, though.

Depends on the definition of Webpage and book.

> There are webpages that have interactive 3D models (which physical books can't).

Pop-up-Books?

Re: Poor Man's Web

#62

I recently documented some similar thoughts on the “cheap” web: [1] https://potato.cheap IMO, protocol is largely a distraction from the good stuff. The question I’ve been wondering lately is, “why don’t most people I meet have personal websites?”

> “why don’t most people I meet have personal websites?”

The bigger question for me is, if it was dead simple and all they had to do was -say- pay $10/mo, would most people actually choose to have a personal website?

I think the issue comes down to most people not seeing enough value to have a personal site to pay for it. And if they don't want to pay, the free DIY options are either a site like Medium or the technical hurdles they have to jump through to get it up and running manually

Re: Poor Man's Web

#64
post #62

I recently documented some similar thoughts on the “cheap” web: [1] https://potato.cheap IMO, protocol is largely a distraction from the good stuff. The question I’ve been wondering lately is, “why don’t most people I meet have personal websites?”

> “why don’t most people I meet have personal websites?” The bigger question for me is, if it was dead simple and all they had to do was -say- pay $10/mo, would most people actually choose to have a personal website? I think the issue comes down to most people not seeing enough value to have a personal site to pay for it. And if they don't want to pay, the free DIY options are either a site like Medium or the technic…

I wouldn’t have one even if it was dead simple and free (or honestly even paid). I just have too much on my plate, and I struggle to see what value it could bring. Let’s say I If I had a personal website, then what? I have to create content for it on some consistent cadence, which feels like a job. And then either no one reads it, which would feel both pointless and demoralizing, or I have to actively market it to try to get people to read it, which sounds even more depressing.

I’m sure this is where people chime in with their survivorship bias (“you’d be surprised how many people would read your site”) or wildly different value sets (“even if no one reads it, it can help you grow!”). But some of us just want to work as little as possible, and then go home and play with our dogs, or go for a run, or binge watch Netflix, or read a book, or pop an edible and make some music, or pen overly grumpy comments on HN. A personal website doesn’t just bring me no value, I’d go so far to say it would bring negative value.

Re: Poor Man's Web

#65
post #49

I think Gemini has missed a trick being being deliberately too simple - e.g. no inline images, no tables, no forms, no basic formatting etc. I know these were deliberately left out for "simplicity" reasons, but then they have a fairly unsimple mechanism for user login/auth that totally undermines their claim for making clients little more than slightly-augmented-terminals, which for me is a smoking gun for these thin…

It looks like this still supports the script tag, which seems to be the biggest "modern web" feature people want to abandon.

So don't include one. JavaScript isn't fucking mandatory.

Re: Poor Man's Web

#66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t slashes typically reserved for flags on Unix and back slashes on dos/windows? If that’s the case then surely the vertices line, pipe symbol |, would be the most visually appropriate? Piping remote data over a network connection and through the local client program to parse seems to be the kind of thing bike shedding was intended for, in agreement but focusing on semantics. It just…

> Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t slashes typically reserved for flags on Unix and back slashes on dos/windows? Forward slash (/) in DOS, while dash, tack, or hyphen (-) are used for UNIX for command line flags or parameters. The / in UNIX was for the path. The backslash (\) is for DOS paths. (Caveat: I started with UNIX in the mid-80s.)

Ah, thanks.

Re: Poor Man's Web

#67
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with most of these discussions is they assume Gemini is a substitute for the web, when it is actually a substitute for Gopher. Gopher never really went away. A few enthusiasts were keeping it alive. Those enthusiasts realized that Gopher had a number of shortcomings, so Gemini was created to address those shortcomings. It was not created to address the shortcomings of the web. (At least not directly. Indi…

I think this is true only up to a point. The sets of Gopher enthusiasts and Gemini enthusiasts surely overlap, but they are not coterminous (disclosure: I administer gopher.floodgap.com). From my view in Gopherspace, Gemini is a better fit for the Gopher+TLS thing people keep trying to do which is both incompatible and doesn't square with Gopher being an ultra-light protocol, and thus most appealing to those people w…

I didn't mean to suggest that Gopher and Gemini enthusiasts are one and the same. Rather, I meant to suggest that it was a subset of Gopher enthusiasts that decided to address some of the shortcomings of Gopher. At least that is the impression that I received while watching from the sidelines. It never really struck me as being a derivative of the web.

And thank you for gopher.floodgap.com. While I had some exposure to Gopher in the mid-1990's, most of my exposure was through Floodgap (and SDF) in the early 2000's.

Re: Poor Man's Web

#68

I recently documented some similar thoughts on the “cheap” web: [1] https://potato.cheap IMO, protocol is largely a distraction from the good stuff. The question I’ve been wondering lately is, “why don’t most people I meet have personal websites?”

> The question I’ve been wondering lately is, “why don’t most people I meet have personal websites?”

Roughly in order: Blogging (as a concept), assholes, Google, social media.

I think the first real hit to personal websites was just the concept of blogging. Before blogging was a popular concept there was rarely an expectation someone's website would see constant updates. Just because they shared pictures from their vacation to Spain there was no assumption you found someone's travelogue that would see constant updates. You could "finish" a personal website.

There were of course plenty of sites that would see regular updates but they were free to set that expectation themselves. There's a conceit to blogging that it's something a person just keeps doing. A blog can never be considered complete. All of the organization is temporal and most of the time so is the navigation. If we find a blog that hasn't had updates in some time we've been conditioned to assume it's dead.

A follow on effect to blogging as a concept was the change in web page authoring software. It went from being designed to build a finite website to build continuous stream that is a blog. Organization of sites went from trees to lists. Tags and categories in most blogging software are just filters for temporally sorted lists of posts.

Because the conceit of blogging is constant updates, local first software was insufficient. It gave way to the likes of WordPress that could be accessed remotely so posts could come from anywhere. This helped kill the market for website authoring software.

Then of course came assholes. Even when you'd decide to start a blog, the Web 2.0 features that helped connect you to others like comments and *backs got abused by spammers and malware. Having a blog meant becoming an unpaid administrator and moderator or disabling all dynamic feedback mechanisms. In the worst case assholes turned your blog into a security liability.

Google adjusted their algorithms to favor recent content. This helped destroy the old style home pages because they became invisible to almost everyone. Unless a site had some very specific content that happened to tickle Google's algorithms just right its results would be on the 400th page of search results after a thousand blogspam links.

Finally social media just became the replacement for blogs and homepages. As an end user there's very little administration that needs to be done. Posting is quick and easy and doesn't ask for formalisms like document titles (naming this is often actually hard) on ontologies. The server administration is also handled by professionals so shitheads flooding your "site" don't rack up huge hosting bills. Content hosting is also handled with the same ease as other types of posts.

I'm not saying social media in inherently good or blogging is bad. I just think they contributed to killing the idea of having a home page.

Re: Poor Man's Web

#69
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like this still supports the script tag, which seems to be the biggest "modern web" feature people want to abandon.

So don't include one. JavaScript isn't fucking mandatory.

The kind of people who tend to want a separate, simpler alternative web are almost universally also the kind of people who are so allergic to javascript that they don't even want it to be an option, on the remote chance they might encounter it in the wild. They're drawn by a combination of nostalgia and spite to manifest an alternate universe where scripting on the web never even happened. Otherwise, sure, they could just write simple HTML and no javascript on the web we have now.

I personally would like to retry a version of the script tag (possibly more like the object tag) with native support for WASM that would make it easy to run scripts in any language... which is closer to the original vision before Javascript "won," and possible without requiring browsers to support the languages. Also maybe things like an tag for HTML, and other things that fell by the wayside of early HTML. I'd like to see something like HolyC, with native support for text, hypertext, drawing and code.

But 99.9% of people seem to just want a web that's basically whitepapers with links, maybe images.

Re: Poor Man's Web

#70
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “why don’t most people I meet have personal websites?” The bigger question for me is, if it was dead simple and all they had to do was -say- pay $10/mo, would most people actually choose to have a personal website? I think the issue comes down to most people not seeing enough value to have a personal site to pay for it. And if they don't want to pay, the free DIY options are either a site like Medium or the technic…

I wouldn’t have one even if it was dead simple and free (or honestly even paid). I just have too much on my plate, and I struggle to see what value it could bring. Let’s say I If I had a personal website, then what? I have to create content for it on some consistent cadence, which feels like a job. And then either no one reads it, which would feel both pointless and demoralizing, or I have to actively market it to tr…

> If I had a personal website, then what? I have to create content for it on some consistent cadence, which feels like a job

Why would you have to do this? You could just update it if/when you feel like updating it.

I've had a personal website for decades, and I've always just updated it when I had something I wanted to share (code, usually). I don't bother with artificially trying to "create content" for it at all, let along with any sort of regular cadence.

My website is collection of reference material and software, not a blog (even though it contains actual blog-like articles and creative writings). Since my goal for it is not to maximize audience, things like update cadence are irrelevant.

Post reply on HN