10 ms·

It feels like the main feature of this project is incompatibility with HTTP. The protocol is new and primitive, it's easy to write tools around it, write texts

It feels like the main feature of this project is incompatibility with HTTP. The protocol is new and primitive, it's easy to write tools around it, write texts about it, etc. A small community forms, and you're part of it. You can advertise it to others, or rant against the mainstream, or whatever. But now what? You lose interest and abandon it, and eventually it dies. We already have a transport protocol that "everybody" agrees on: HTTP. We can define a specification for a subset of it, and a subset of HTML/browser features we want, create tools around them, and form a small community. The advantage here is that the community is not an island. Users of Big Browser can still read your latest rants. They can even learn about this project and, while perhaps not using Mom-and-Pop browser, may support it in their sites, since it wouldn't require another server; mostly just having their site work without JavaScript would be a huge step forward. Right, you don't have Google filtering based on Accessibility. The community can create a search engine that does. Now what? You just get on with your life, producing and consuming AccessibleWeb content without the gratuitous incompatibility.

ozim 6y ago
I totally agree with that. It is not like some web police force is holding people at gunpoint to add javascript and angular or react. People use all those features because they want to and they find it useful.
- coronadisaster 6y ago
  > they find it useful Sometimes it is just the latest trend...
- Symbiote 6y ago
  This protocol doesn't seem to be aimed at commercial use, but the "web police" called "the manager" or "the marketing department" or whatever are the ones forcing the use of the privacy-invading tools.
- iamstupidsimple 6y ago
  The original Facebook and Google did not use much JavaScript, so I'm always skeptical when literal documents need it for anything other than ads (and even then...).
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    And the screen refreshed every time you did something as it loaded a new page. Just because it’s abused doesn’t mean JS doesn’t have uses.
    - lal 6y ago
      the screen refreshed every time you browsed to new content or did something that required accessing new content, as one would intuitively expect
      - ddalex 6y ago
        I never understood the hangup on screen refreshes - I mean, why is it important that the screen doesn't refresh? And if it's that important that EVERYBODY deploys JS to render client side to avoid the refreshes, why isn't this handled at the browser level in the first place (i.e. declare "ExtendDisplayTime"-something on your document and the browser should replace the screen content only AFTER the new page is completely painted). But at the core of it, the web is a document-display system, and back-hammering and shoe-horning apps that masquerade as documents will always be painful.
- petra 6y ago
  Maybe, instead of the spec allowing/banning javascript, it would only allow usage of curated list of "apps" to be part of the page ? For example, i'm thinking of a roam research like content platform, without tracking and ads. It would be interesting to see shared content around that.
- gchamonlive 6y ago
  Legacy and momentum plays a greater role in adopting a framework than sheer choice. If I could choose I would use frameworks in haskell or rust 100% of the time where I work. I don't because there is nothing built around it there and I need to get the job done right now. I would like to be the change I want to see, but sometimes there is just not enough time.
  - acheron9383 6y ago
    That is a solid point, at the end of the day, programming languages and frameworks are just tools we use to build a product that has some use to someone (Be that monetary value or art or whatever). At work, it is almost always better to just iterate on the existing tool stack rather than try to spool up new one. I love writing Rust, but I'd need a good reason (or at least a big project to amortize the cost over) to reach for it over the existing very function c++ libraries I already use for our embedded work.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago
  There kinda is? While web sites can avoid JavaScript all right, browsing most sites does require JavaScript. As a NoScript user, I'm keenly aware of how many web sites simply do not work without JavaScript. And I'm not even talking about all the third party spyware.
  - JamesLeonis 6y ago
    I had to give up doing this. I couldn't manage all of the different times websites broke over just CDNs. Lord help me if the website is Ad driven. I encourage every web developer to try running NoScript for a week. You will find it enlightening.
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      If you're already using uBlock Origin you can disable JS per site (or by default, like NoScript). I've found that the UI is way easier to understand compared to NoScript.
      - ta5hkv56f 6y ago
        uMatrix is similarly excellent (finer grained control I think is the difference). For frequently visited sites you can save which bits you want to allow so its not as onerous as you'd think. Blocks Google Analytics and Facebook's poison by default.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      I'm not sure what you would gain from disabling things like the ability to upload multiple files, autocomplete fields and rich text editing. Raging against and disabling Javascript is just stupid in my viewpoint. I'm not going to cut out absolutely essential features just to satisfy some fringe group.
  - Silke_Mousepad 6y ago
    What if JS over gemini:// would only be able to render some things and would not have network access? It just is a question of what your html renderer allows. Add Lua if you think that's better! But you will have the same problems if embedded Lua can do network stuff. ...or let's just P2P our Emacsens... the last non divisive browser... :-P
- lal 6y ago
  This is more intended to be a comfier gopher than a less-shitty http. Most of its early adherents are ex-phloggers attracted to its features relative to gopher, not ex-webbers attracted to its lack of client-side scripting or whatever. The fact that this has attracted a fair number of gopher users (who have always very strongly opposed http/s) would seem proof enough of it's success, imo, at least within particular circles, and at least within the context of its goals. It was never intended to draw people away from the web, it was intended to be a sort of superpowered gopher.
- jbverschoor 6y ago
  Actually they do. If you do not fill in your taxes, which are powered by JavaScript, people with hubs are going to come for you and take you hostage, I. Order to rob you from your “tax” money..
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I can file my taxes without using a computer. I've done so for many years.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
smichel17 6y ago
I am mostly with you. It should be a subset of http. And the content should be a subset of html/css/js --- but the schema ought to have a different prefix. So if I navigate to acc://example.com, Mom-and-Pop browser would perform the same steps that Big Browser would take to fetch http://example.com http://example.com This allows hyperlinking to the accessible version of a page, and using different default browsers for the different protocols, so that I (as someone who wants to use Mom-and-Pop browser) can easily fall back to Big Browser when necessary to view a page that won't render over accs://
- oefrha 6y ago
  You basically just invented WAP 2.0.
  - peteyboy 6y ago
    ...or more specifically, re-implemented http 0.9 but with TLS. What here is wrong?
  - smichel17 6y ago
    I knew this was a thing, in the context of mms, but didn't know the name, so thanks for that.
- petra 6y ago
  But breaking compatibility will make it harder for regular users to read that content. What about using something like https://gemini.site.com https://gemini.site.com ? And part of that restricted spec would allow linking only to such links, to stay within the network ? And the biggest challenge with Gemini is creating a great search engine. But now , searching site:gemini.* KEYWORD , gives us the power of Google and other search engines.
  - vertex-four 6y ago
    > And part of that restricted spec would allow linking only to such links, to stay within the network ? Doesn't work over time. You link somewhere, the other site owner a month later decides they want to use Google Analytics, now you're linking your readers back to the web they're trying to avoid. > And the biggest challenge with Gemini is creating a great search engine. Not really, it's discovery in general, which can be solved in many ways that don't involve search engines; Wikipedia's references are often a good discovery tool, for example. I use aggregators to find Gemini content and follow discussions which are happening across the space.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ddevault 6y ago
Incompatibility with HTTP is a feature, and a good one at that. It's drawing a line in the sand: this is bad, and we don't want to be a part of it. We don't want a subset of HTTP. We don't want a subset of browser features. Yes, we are fully aware that it would not work with "modern" "browsers". We want something which isn't rotten from the start. We don't want to click a link and end up back on another maggot infested pile of JavaScript crap - we want a network where everyone who's playing is playing on a sane baseline. The whole point of this project is to shrug off legacy. Yes, that means reinventing a few wheels.
- wolco 6y ago
  Or just create a browser without javascript support.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    I wonder if everyone in this thread is willfully missing the point, or else if we're just so deep into the brainwashing of the modern web that they can no longer see the surface.
    - gpsx 6y ago
      Don't worry, if this were to ever catch on it would be incorporated into browsers, meaning the net effect is just to make browsers more complicated.
      - ozfive 6y ago
        This! I agreed wholeheartedly!
      - ddevault 6y ago
        That's the browser's problem. We'll still have a new, simpler protocol which we can use without the web stack.
      - flatlanderwoman 6y ago
protomyth 6y ago
If you a looking for a 1:1 clone for the early web, you will probably be disapointed. Gemini takes way more design hints from Gopher then it ever will from the web. It looks to be a reimagined gopher with some early web parts. Which makes me wonder how close their protocol is to the gopher one.
- lal 6y ago
  in terms of semantics it is almost entirely dissimilar except that it's line-oriented. instead of having any of the content type fields or whatever which enforce half of gopher's grammar, links are just "=> gemini://some.url/tunes.mp3", and when you hit that content it gives you a header with a mime type telling you it's an mp3. so now you don't need any of the structure of gopher and can treat literally everything but links as raw text, and clients can optionally format some agreed-upon subset of markdown, and otherwise, that subset of markdown is so readable without formatting that you don't even really need it. this means you can create a far simpler protocol semantically: requests are just the uri, responses are just a header of a two digit response code and the mime type, and the rest of the response is just the content as raw text. that's the entire protocol grammar.
lazyjones 6y ago
A subset of HTTP and HTML is not an option if you want to keep existing semantics. Both are by default broken, unsafe and unusable on some systems, so you will need boilerplate that clutters your subsets unnecessarily, e.g. a crapload of headers like "Content-Security-Policy", META-headers ("viewport") etc.
- derefr 6y ago
  Just create servers that consume AccessibleHTML, and then adulterate it into fancy regular HTTP/HTML for consumption by most UAs (or, optionally, leave it alone for consumption by UAs that send a `X-Rendering-Policy: AccessibleHTML` header. Either way you can still get at the "real" AccessibleHTML source by sending `Cache-Control: no-transform`.) Think of these as "AccessibleWeb to RegularWeb gateways"—except they'd be deployed as reverse-proxies, so RegularWeb users wouldn't have to know they were there. This is similar to the driving motivation behind RSS: it was supposed to be something for simple static sites to put up, such that gateways could then poll it, before turning around and doing something more technologically-complex to actually deliver the events, like using WebHooks, or sending emails, or doing whatever PuSH does.
bob1029 6y ago
This is how I am approaching one of my app framework projects. HTTP is the delivery vehicle, but I only utilize a very small subset of the various full APIs (HTTP/HTML/JS/CSS) in order to deliver the framework's functionality. One of my objectives is for the framework to support a wider range of browsers than most modern websites are able to handle today. If vendors like Apple and Google begin fully-embracing things like PWA, I could wind up in a really good position regarding this approach.
pkphilip 6y ago
Well said. The problem with the Gemini protocol and its proponents is that they are trying to push a protocol (if you can call it that) which makes no sense when what they want to achieve can be achieved much more easily using an alternate approach. This is like pushing for stone cart wheels when spoked wheels are already available. For instance, if the issue is with the use of cookies, all they need to implement is a mechanism for the server to not respond to cookies in any form. If there issue is with other forms of tracking, they could implement a browser which supports a small subset of the HTTP protocol which does not allow any tracking of any kind.
- naasking 6y ago
  > If there issue is with other forms of tracking, they could implement a browser which supports a small subset of the HTTP protocol which does not allow any tracking of any kind. They did. That's the Gemini protocol. I recommend reading the spec to properly understand the constraints they were trying to meet.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    Gemeni is a subset of HTTP?! I thought it was similar to HTTP, like Gopher. Could you link to the relevant docs?
    - naasking 6y ago
      It very closely resembles HTTP 0.9. It's pretty much a single line protocol, like "GET [URL]crlf" over TLS, and that's it.
      - jhardy54 6y ago
        That's not what subset means though.
  - harikb 6y ago
    With a text like this, you can’t blame the readers assuming incompatibility and losing interest > Now, what does Gemini currently have to offer? The best way to find out is to head over to the official site: gemini.circumlunar.space in your Gemini browser.
oneplane 6y ago
I wonder if the main usage of the internet isn't the web as we think about it, but largely facebook, youtube, twitter, maybe some google+wikipedia. People don't see it in terms of 'websites' anymore.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  yes I think websites are becoming anachronical at that point.. web will fade into ubiquitous peers for high bandwidth data exchange. messages, multimedia, ar/vr .. the end result will be what matter.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    I dunno. I see a backlash happening, people building their own blog sites again. The whole "push to your own site, then syndicate that link to social media" thing seems to be happening more. I'm tempted to creat a new GeoCities and see how that goes for non-technical folks
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Isn’t that what NeoCities aims to be (a GeoCities reboot)? Disclaimer: haven’t used it; don’t know how it works.
      - marcus_holmes 6y ago
        never heard of it. Thanks I'll go check it out :)
    - agumonkey 6y ago
      I don't think this will last. It's not my personal opinion or preference, I care few about the modern web but to me .. watching people interacting with computers, browsers and how they use whatsapp or instagram .. I see no value for them[0] into the early simple web. It's like betting against television in the 90s. [0] meaning in the average folk psychology, of course a simpler cleaner web has value, just not to them AFAIB
thih9 6y ago
You suggest using a subset of HTTP and list “Users of Big Browser can still read your latest rants.” as the main advantage. But with a lightweight protocol like this, it seems easy to set up a proxy that would let anyone access the content via web.
- acdw 6y ago
  And in fact they have (there are two that I know of!): - https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/gemini.circumlunar.space/ - https://proxy.vulpes.one/ https://proxy.vulpes.one/ (also does gopher)
lucrative 6y ago
I would really like to see something like this taking form and getting traction. I think it would be a nice simplification of the Web. My question is: what's stopping us from doing that?
ForHackernews 6y ago
> We already have a transport protocol that "everybody" agrees on: HTTP. Please no. No more everything-over-http. There are other ports besides 443; there are other protocols besides HTTP. The Internet was once a general purpose peer-to-peer network, and we should try to keep it that way.
pwdisswordfish2 6y ago
I do not see the "incompatibility". There is a web-to-gemini gateway at https://portal.mozz.us https://portal.mozz.us which I think is an example to how easy it is to write one. Big Browser is the cause of so many problems that people on HN complain about. Without the control over Big Browser that certain offending corporations have, their empires are considerably weaker. Mom-and-Pop Browser is probably not an accurate caricature. Maybe something like End User Browser is more apropos. If most HTTP is being sent over TLS these days, and Gemini is also over TLS, one could argue there is no "incompatibility". Gemini just doesn't need to all the extra ad-hoc functionality that has been built on top of HTTP. It is intended for data retrieval, not something that relies on help from the 20+ million lines of code in Big Browser to achieve.
6c696e7578 6y ago
Not long ago, someone submitted "Geek ring" which I think is very similar to what you're describing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23549471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23549471

ozim 6y ago

I totally agree with that. It is not like some web police force is holding people at gunpoint to add javascript and angular or react. People use all those features because they want to and they find it useful.

coronadisaster 6y ago
> they find it useful Sometimes it is just the latest trend...
Symbiote 6y ago
This protocol doesn't seem to be aimed at commercial use, but the "web police" called "the manager" or "the marketing department" or whatever are the ones forcing the use of the privacy-invading tools.
iamstupidsimple 6y ago
The original Facebook and Google did not use much JavaScript, so I'm always skeptical when literal documents need it for anything other than ads (and even then...).
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  And the screen refreshed every time you did something as it loaded a new page. Just because it’s abused doesn’t mean JS doesn’t have uses.
  - lal 6y ago
    the screen refreshed every time you browsed to new content or did something that required accessing new content, as one would intuitively expect
    - ddalex 6y ago
      I never understood the hangup on screen refreshes - I mean, why is it important that the screen doesn't refresh? And if it's that important that EVERYBODY deploys JS to render client side to avoid the refreshes, why isn't this handled at the browser level in the first place (i.e. declare "ExtendDisplayTime"-something on your document and the browser should replace the screen content only AFTER the new page is completely painted). But at the core of it, the web is a document-display system, and back-hammering and shoe-horning apps that masquerade as documents will always be painful.
petra 6y ago
Maybe, instead of the spec allowing/banning javascript, it would only allow usage of curated list of "apps" to be part of the page ? For example, i'm thinking of a roam research like content platform, without tracking and ads. It would be interesting to see shared content around that.
gchamonlive 6y ago
Legacy and momentum plays a greater role in adopting a framework than sheer choice. If I could choose I would use frameworks in haskell or rust 100% of the time where I work. I don't because there is nothing built around it there and I need to get the job done right now. I would like to be the change I want to see, but sometimes there is just not enough time.
- acheron9383 6y ago
  That is a solid point, at the end of the day, programming languages and frameworks are just tools we use to build a product that has some use to someone (Be that monetary value or art or whatever). At work, it is almost always better to just iterate on the existing tool stack rather than try to spool up new one. I love writing Rust, but I'd need a good reason (or at least a big project to amortize the cost over) to reach for it over the existing very function c++ libraries I already use for our embedded work.
loup-vaillant 6y ago
There kinda is? While web sites can avoid JavaScript all right, browsing most sites does require JavaScript. As a NoScript user, I'm keenly aware of how many web sites simply do not work without JavaScript. And I'm not even talking about all the third party spyware.
- JamesLeonis 6y ago
  I had to give up doing this. I couldn't manage all of the different times websites broke over just CDNs. Lord help me if the website is Ad driven. I encourage every web developer to try running NoScript for a week. You will find it enlightening.
  - jhardy54 6y ago
    If you're already using uBlock Origin you can disable JS per site (or by default, like NoScript). I've found that the UI is way easier to understand compared to NoScript.
    - ta5hkv56f 6y ago
      uMatrix is similarly excellent (finer grained control I think is the difference). For frequently visited sites you can save which bits you want to allow so its not as onerous as you'd think. Blocks Google Analytics and Facebook's poison by default.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you would gain from disabling things like the ability to upload multiple files, autocomplete fields and rich text editing. Raging against and disabling Javascript is just stupid in my viewpoint. I'm not going to cut out absolutely essential features just to satisfy some fringe group.
- Silke_Mousepad 6y ago
  What if JS over gemini:// would only be able to render some things and would not have network access? It just is a question of what your html renderer allows. Add Lua if you think that's better! But you will have the same problems if embedded Lua can do network stuff. ...or let's just P2P our Emacsens... the last non divisive browser... :-P
lal 6y ago
This is more intended to be a comfier gopher than a less-shitty http. Most of its early adherents are ex-phloggers attracted to its features relative to gopher, not ex-webbers attracted to its lack of client-side scripting or whatever. The fact that this has attracted a fair number of gopher users (who have always very strongly opposed http/s) would seem proof enough of it's success, imo, at least within particular circles, and at least within the context of its goals. It was never intended to draw people away from the web, it was intended to be a sort of superpowered gopher.
jbverschoor 6y ago
Actually they do. If you do not fill in your taxes, which are powered by JavaScript, people with hubs are going to come for you and take you hostage, I. Order to rob you from your “tax” money..
- imtringued 6y ago
  I can file my taxes without using a computer. I've done so for many years.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

smichel17 6y ago

I am mostly with you. It should be a subset of http. And the content should be a subset of html/css/js --- but the schema ought to have a different prefix. So if I navigate to acc://example.com, Mom-and-Pop browser would perform the same steps that Big Browser would take to fetch http://example.com http://example.com This allows hyperlinking to the accessible version of a page, and using different default browsers for the different protocols, so that I (as someone who wants to use Mom-and-Pop browser) can easily fall back to Big Browser when necessary to view a page that won't render over accs://

oefrha 6y ago
You basically just invented WAP 2.0.
- peteyboy 6y ago
  ...or more specifically, re-implemented http 0.9 but with TLS. What here is wrong?
- smichel17 6y ago
  I knew this was a thing, in the context of mms, but didn't know the name, so thanks for that.
petra 6y ago
But breaking compatibility will make it harder for regular users to read that content. What about using something like https://gemini.site.com https://gemini.site.com ? And part of that restricted spec would allow linking only to such links, to stay within the network ? And the biggest challenge with Gemini is creating a great search engine. But now , searching site:gemini.* KEYWORD , gives us the power of Google and other search engines.
- vertex-four 6y ago
  > And part of that restricted spec would allow linking only to such links, to stay within the network ? Doesn't work over time. You link somewhere, the other site owner a month later decides they want to use Google Analytics, now you're linking your readers back to the web they're trying to avoid. > And the biggest challenge with Gemini is creating a great search engine. Not really, it's discovery in general, which can be solved in many ways that don't involve search engines; Wikipedia's references are often a good discovery tool, for example. I use aggregators to find Gemini content and follow discussions which are happening across the space.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ddevault 6y ago

Incompatibility with HTTP is a feature, and a good one at that. It's drawing a line in the sand: this is bad, and we don't want to be a part of it. We don't want a subset of HTTP. We don't want a subset of browser features. Yes, we are fully aware that it would not work with "modern" "browsers". We want something which isn't rotten from the start. We don't want to click a link and end up back on another maggot infested pile of JavaScript crap - we want a network where everyone who's playing is playing on a sane baseline. The whole point of this project is to shrug off legacy. Yes, that means reinventing a few wheels.

wolco 6y ago
Or just create a browser without javascript support.
- ddevault 6y ago
  I wonder if everyone in this thread is willfully missing the point, or else if we're just so deep into the brainwashing of the modern web that they can no longer see the surface.
  - gpsx 6y ago
    Don't worry, if this were to ever catch on it would be incorporated into browsers, meaning the net effect is just to make browsers more complicated.
    - ozfive 6y ago
      This! I agreed wholeheartedly!
    - ddevault 6y ago
      That's the browser's problem. We'll still have a new, simpler protocol which we can use without the web stack.
    - flatlanderwoman 6y ago

protomyth 6y ago

If you a looking for a 1:1 clone for the early web, you will probably be disapointed. Gemini takes way more design hints from Gopher then it ever will from the web. It looks to be a reimagined gopher with some early web parts. Which makes me wonder how close their protocol is to the gopher one.

lal 6y ago
in terms of semantics it is almost entirely dissimilar except that it's line-oriented. instead of having any of the content type fields or whatever which enforce half of gopher's grammar, links are just "=> gemini://some.url/tunes.mp3", and when you hit that content it gives you a header with a mime type telling you it's an mp3. so now you don't need any of the structure of gopher and can treat literally everything but links as raw text, and clients can optionally format some agreed-upon subset of markdown, and otherwise, that subset of markdown is so readable without formatting that you don't even really need it. this means you can create a far simpler protocol semantically: requests are just the uri, responses are just a header of a two digit response code and the mime type, and the rest of the response is just the content as raw text. that's the entire protocol grammar.

lazyjones 6y ago

A subset of HTTP and HTML is not an option if you want to keep existing semantics. Both are by default broken, unsafe and unusable on some systems, so you will need boilerplate that clutters your subsets unnecessarily, e.g. a crapload of headers like "Content-Security-Policy", META-headers ("viewport") etc.

derefr 6y ago
Just create servers that consume AccessibleHTML, and then adulterate it into fancy regular HTTP/HTML for consumption by most UAs (or, optionally, leave it alone for consumption by UAs that send a `X-Rendering-Policy: AccessibleHTML` header. Either way you can still get at the "real" AccessibleHTML source by sending `Cache-Control: no-transform`.) Think of these as "AccessibleWeb to RegularWeb gateways"—except they'd be deployed as reverse-proxies, so RegularWeb users wouldn't have to know they were there. This is similar to the driving motivation behind RSS: it was supposed to be something for simple static sites to put up, such that gateways could then poll it, before turning around and doing something more technologically-complex to actually deliver the events, like using WebHooks, or sending emails, or doing whatever PuSH does.

bob1029 6y ago

This is how I am approaching one of my app framework projects. HTTP is the delivery vehicle, but I only utilize a very small subset of the various full APIs (HTTP/HTML/JS/CSS) in order to deliver the framework's functionality. One of my objectives is for the framework to support a wider range of browsers than most modern websites are able to handle today. If vendors like Apple and Google begin fully-embracing things like PWA, I could wind up in a really good position regarding this approach.

pkphilip 6y ago

Well said. The problem with the Gemini protocol and its proponents is that they are trying to push a protocol (if you can call it that) which makes no sense when what they want to achieve can be achieved much more easily using an alternate approach. This is like pushing for stone cart wheels when spoked wheels are already available. For instance, if the issue is with the use of cookies, all they need to implement is a mechanism for the server to not respond to cookies in any form. If there issue is with other forms of tracking, they could implement a browser which supports a small subset of the HTTP protocol which does not allow any tracking of any kind.

naasking 6y ago
> If there issue is with other forms of tracking, they could implement a browser which supports a small subset of the HTTP protocol which does not allow any tracking of any kind. They did. That's the Gemini protocol. I recommend reading the spec to properly understand the constraints they were trying to meet.
- jhardy54 6y ago
  Gemeni is a subset of HTTP?! I thought it was similar to HTTP, like Gopher. Could you link to the relevant docs?
  - naasking 6y ago
    It very closely resembles HTTP 0.9. It's pretty much a single line protocol, like "GET [URL]crlf" over TLS, and that's it.
    - jhardy54 6y ago
      That's not what subset means though.
- harikb 6y ago
  With a text like this, you can’t blame the readers assuming incompatibility and losing interest > Now, what does Gemini currently have to offer? The best way to find out is to head over to the official site: gemini.circumlunar.space in your Gemini browser.

oneplane 6y ago

I wonder if the main usage of the internet isn't the web as we think about it, but largely facebook, youtube, twitter, maybe some google+wikipedia. People don't see it in terms of 'websites' anymore.

agumonkey 6y ago
yes I think websites are becoming anachronical at that point.. web will fade into ubiquitous peers for high bandwidth data exchange. messages, multimedia, ar/vr .. the end result will be what matter.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  I dunno. I see a backlash happening, people building their own blog sites again. The whole "push to your own site, then syndicate that link to social media" thing seems to be happening more. I'm tempted to creat a new GeoCities and see how that goes for non-technical folks
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Isn’t that what NeoCities aims to be (a GeoCities reboot)? Disclaimer: haven’t used it; don’t know how it works.
    - marcus_holmes 6y ago
      never heard of it. Thanks I'll go check it out :)
  - agumonkey 6y ago
    I don't think this will last. It's not my personal opinion or preference, I care few about the modern web but to me .. watching people interacting with computers, browsers and how they use whatsapp or instagram .. I see no value for them[0] into the early simple web. It's like betting against television in the 90s. [0] meaning in the average folk psychology, of course a simpler cleaner web has value, just not to them AFAIB

thih9 6y ago

You suggest using a subset of HTTP and list “Users of Big Browser can still read your latest rants.” as the main advantage. But with a lightweight protocol like this, it seems easy to set up a proxy that would let anyone access the content via web.

acdw 6y ago
And in fact they have (there are two that I know of!): - https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://portal.mozz.us/gemini/gemini.circumlunar.space/ - https://proxy.vulpes.one/ https://proxy.vulpes.one/ (also does gopher)

lucrative 6y ago

I would really like to see something like this taking form and getting traction. I think it would be a nice simplification of the Web. My question is: what's stopping us from doing that?

ForHackernews 6y ago

> We already have a transport protocol that "everybody" agrees on: HTTP. Please no. No more everything-over-http. There are other ports besides 443; there are other protocols besides HTTP. The Internet was once a general purpose peer-to-peer network, and we should try to keep it that way.

pwdisswordfish2 6y ago

I do not see the "incompatibility". There is a web-to-gemini gateway at https://portal.mozz.us https://portal.mozz.us which I think is an example to how easy it is to write one. Big Browser is the cause of so many problems that people on HN complain about. Without the control over Big Browser that certain offending corporations have, their empires are considerably weaker. Mom-and-Pop Browser is probably not an accurate caricature. Maybe something like End User Browser is more apropos. If most HTTP is being sent over TLS these days, and Gemini is also over TLS, one could argue there is no "incompatibility". Gemini just doesn't need to all the extra ad-hoc functionality that has been built on top of HTTP. It is intended for data retrieval, not something that relies on help from the 20+ million lines of code in Big Browser to achieve.

6c696e7578 6y ago

Not long ago, someone submitted "Geek ring" which I think is very similar to what you're describing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23549471 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23549471