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

Six Years of Gemini

geminiprotocol.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 169 posts

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#81

Post by bayindirh »

rglullis wrote: post #69
bayindirh wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who says I'm trying to pull in everyone from the old internet to the new internet (Gemini)? If the people I care comes along, that's enough for me, and it's up to them. For example, I switched to Mastodon, and follow people who I really want to follow are already there, plus I met a ton of interesting people, and was able to see real forms of people I followed before, so I have updated my views on them. > "Oh, but I…

> For example, I switched to Mastodon (...) and was able to see real forms of people I followed before, so I have updated my views on them. Isn't that strong evidence that it is possible to have a "human-scale" web built on HTTP, and consequently that there is not much benefit in restricting yourself to a protocol that is designed to be limited? > Personally, I see Gemini or other protocols as equals to HTTP/S Except…

Yes, but it's important to understand that limitations are moved to Mastodon "layer" in that case. It takes careful deliberation and restraint to keep something tidy. Mastodon does this by limiting its scope and organizational structure. We as humans like to abuse capabilities. So, to keep something tidy and prevent (or realistically slow down) rot, you need a limit somewhere. Putting that limit to humans vs. the protocol is a trade-off.

In that scenario W3C doesn't put any brakes, Mastodon puts brakes on development, organizational structure and scope, and Gemini puts brakes on the protocol. So, it's the most limited but hardest to abuse in a sense.

I probably worded my "I see them as equals" part of my comment wrong. I know Gemnini is a subset of HTTP, it's more Gopher than HTTP, and that's OK by me. Moreover, that leanness is something I prefer. See, the most used feature on my browser is Reader mode, and I amassed enormous amount of links in Pocket just because of the reading experience it offered.

> I really don't get why we would have to deliberately be stripping ourselves of so much power and potential.

Because power corrupts and gets abused. A friend of mine told me that they now use Kamal which makes deployment easy. How it's deployed? Build a container -> Push to registry -> pull the container on the remote system -> runs the container -> sets up and runs a proxy in front of that container to handle incoming connections.

That's for a simple web application...

I mean, I push files to a web server and restart its process. I'm not against power, I'm against corruption, and given human nature, restraint is something hard to practice, and that's if you want to learn and practice it.

> Talking about Gemini as the best solution to the problems of the modern web is like saying we should wear chastity belts to deal with teenage pregnancies.

I never said Gemini is the only and the best way forward. Again, for me It's another protocol, which offers a nice trade-off for some people sharing a particular set of values. It's like a parallel web like BBSes or public terminals (e.g.: SDF).

Being an absolutist benefits no one. We should learn, understand and improve. We can have multiple webs, and we shall be free to roam them in a way we like. I'd love to use my terminal to roam some text only web with my favorite monospace font and terminal theme, but I like to write comments here and think on the replies I get, too.

I find myself preferring a text-only, distraction-free web more and more, and naturally evolving my habits and personal infrastructure in that way, but I'm not carrying a flag, shouting about end-times and preaching stuff as savior. I'm not that person.

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#82

Post by rickcarlino »

fishgoesblub wrote: post #11

It was sad seeing the hate for it on here when it was new-ish, and while I haven't used it in a while, I'm glad to see it still kicking around. Such a neat and fun project.

The biggest thing I’ve seen is outsiders who find protocol issues to be non-starters. It’s certainly not a perfect protocol, but neither is HTTP or email. It works and I’m happy that we have another option for hypermedia.

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#83

Post by hombre_fatal »

Gormo wrote: post #72
sneak wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t hate it, but I question the use. You can use HTTP to do what it does, but better. The modern web is opt-in. I build and use sites that aren’t SPAs and shitted up with 3p resources and images and code. HTTP is great, and deserves our time and attention. I get that they seem upset with the modern web, and I am too - but it isn’t HTTP’s fault. It’s the sites you visit. If you want to build new and smaller commun…

> I don’t hate it, but I question the use. You can use HTTP to do what it does, but better. I'm not sure I understand that. HTTP is the fundamental protocol of the web. If your goal is to create an ecosystem that is deliberately set apart from the web, how would using the same underlying tech stack help rather than hinder you in doing that? > HTTP is great, and deserves our time and attention. I get that they seem up…

Though there are any number of nonstandard things you can do over HTTP to restrict your community from the unwashed eternal september noobs from joining it.

Requiring a markdown content-type would probably even be enough.

Consider the fact that TFA is already proxied over HTTP just so more than 3 people will read it, so it seems more sane to be HTTP native.

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#84

Post by Gormo »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #83
Gormo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t hate it, but I question the use. You can use HTTP to do what it does, but better. I'm not sure I understand that. HTTP is the fundamental protocol of the web. If your goal is to create an ecosystem that is deliberately set apart from the web, how would using the same underlying tech stack help rather than hinder you in doing that? > HTTP is great, and deserves our time and attention. I get that they seem up…

Though there are any number of nonstandard things you can do over HTTP to restrict your community from the unwashed eternal september noobs from joining it. Requiring a markdown content-type would probably even be enough. Consider the fact that TFA is already proxied over HTTP just so more than 3 people will read it, so it seems more sane to be HTTP native.

> Though there are any number of nonstandard things you can do over HTTP to restrict your community from the unwashed eternal september noobs from joining it.

But why would you bother with that, when your whole goal is to create an ecosystem that's separate from the web in the first place?

> Consider the fact that TFA is already proxied over HTTP just so more than 3 people will read it. Seems more sane to be HTTP native.

Podcasts are often rehosted on YouTube, blog content is often reposted to social media, etc. Making content viewable from the other medium without making it native to the other medium is a common practice, and wouldn't defeat the purpose of trying to build a distinct ecosystem on top of the same foundation that underlies the ecosystem you're trying to avoid.

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#85

Post by jmclnx »

grep_name wrote: post #76
jmclnx wrote: post #73

FWIW, I have moved my WEB site to Gemini an decided a little later to mirror it on gopher (for fun). I find maintaining these 2 sites far easier then dealing with html and the *panels I need to use to upload to my old WEB site. People who have never viewed Gemini are missing some decent content.

I checked out gemini maybe four years ago? And I remember really liking the idea but struggling to find content. Got any tips?

try gemini://sdf.org/ and gemini://gem.sdf.org/

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#86

Post by Gormo »

rglullis wrote: post #67
shakna wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And HTTP is not the only protocol out there. Plenty of others exist. Like Gemini, that has multiple browser implementations. What's your point, exactly?

My point is that the choice of protocol (much like the browser) is not a relevant factor if your goal is to be able to participate in the www without dealing with the issues. We can have all the upside of an http-based web, without dealing with the downsides. The converse is not true. A Gemini network is by design limited in functionality, which is a downside that can not be mitigated.

> My point is that the choice of protocol (much like the browser) is not a relevant factor if your goal is to be able to participate in the www without dealing with the issues.

Right, but that isn't the goal of Gemini. It's goal is to create a distinct ecosystem, not to participate in the existing one with marginally less annoyance.

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#87

Post by Gormo »

rglullis wrote: post #55
_Algernon_ wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit with A is that it also removes higher order effects of the modern web. You may for example remove adverts by installing an ad blocker, but that wont change the incentives that advertising creates (eg. clickbait, engagement maximizing, etc.). With A you can guarantee that the content is not shaped by these incentives.

> With A you can guarantee that the content is not shaped by these incentives. Without those incentives, you will quickly find out that there will not be much of an Internet out there. If you don't believe me, check how many people are on YouTube talking about Open Source, when PeerTube exists and already can reach millions of people.

> Without those incentives, you will quickly find out that there will not be much of an Internet out there.

Well, there is plenty of interesting content on Gemini. If you're OK with having 50% fewer needles in order to get rid of 99.999999% of the hay, then it's a win.

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#88

Post by mcluck »

zozbot234 wrote: post #50

Gemini the protocol is still a bit mysterious to me. Why not use plain HTTPS and just serve a new text/x.gemini MIME type? Or even serve plain old text/html and enforce no-JS-or-CSS in the Gemini client.

Part of the goals of making it so tiny, as far as I understand it, is that a normal person could reasonably implement the entire thing from server to client. Going full HTTPS and HTML is a bit of a lift for a single person in a short period of time

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#89

Post by ndiddy »

vascocosta wrote: post #63

As an early adopter and developer of a couple of service oriented capsules, as time went by my interest faded completely. I'm a strong advocate of live and let live, so this is not a critique or discouragement post, but rather my own perspective. Like many have mentioned already, I personally would have preferred pure markdown and no gemtext at all. Similarly, and although I understand the reasoning behind making enc…

> Even if we consider just the minimalist and well designed websites, this means hoards of content when compared to all gemini capsules. I missed a broader set of topics when I used gemini and ultimately that was what killed my interest.

This is definitely Gemini's biggest weakness. I looked around on it a bit when it was gaining attention, and most of the sites I saw were just complaints about how bloated the modern web had become. I get it, but it's kind of treating the whole thing as a novelty rather than an actual medium that can be used to convey information. It didn't have the wide and varied userbase that even the mid-90s academic web they were trying to replicate had. It kind of reminded me of all the people who write a static site generator for their blog, and then only write a single blogpost about how they made their static site generator.

Re: Six Years of Gemini

#90

Post by vascocosta »

RiverCrochet wrote: post #74
vascocosta wrote: post #63

As an early adopter and developer of a couple of service oriented capsules, as time went by my interest faded completely. I'm a strong advocate of live and let live, so this is not a critique or discouragement post, but rather my own perspective. Like many have mentioned already, I personally would have preferred pure markdown and no gemtext at all. Similarly, and although I understand the reasoning behind making enc…

The thing I liked about Gemini and its self-imposed limitations is that it was very much impossible to create a misbehaving Gemini document. There is no way a Gemini browser will phone home, run malicious code on my side, grab/upload my browser history or send sensor or other data because I forgot to turn off various options, etc. To me the entire thing was much more trustworthy. You can of course recreate this exper…

I liked that as well, but wouldn't remember it before reading your comment. I guess all in all it is a pretty nice protocol, the only real problem for me is that the content is too niche to appeal to me on a daily basis.
Post reply on HN