4 ms·

You might be interested in Gemini [1][2] then. There is a curated list[3] of clients, servers, and resources. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(proto

by xvilka 5y ago

You might be interested in Gemini [1][2] then. There is a curated list[3] of clients, servers, and resources. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol) [2] https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ https://gemini.circumlunar.space/ [3] https://github.com/kr1sp1n/awesome-gemini https://github.com/kr1sp1n/awesome-gemini

forgotmypw17 5y ago
I like the idea of Gemini, thanks. In my opinion it has many shortcomings compared to "Web 1.1"
- zzo38computer 5y ago
  Which shortcomings do you mean, specifically?
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    Here are some shortcomings of Gemini which come to mind... There are few choices in clients... A lot of older hardware is left behind... The TLS requirement means no human-readable protocol... But the biggest one, in my opinion as an experienced IT person, is that it is a "clean start", meaning all the same problems which have already been solved in HTTP and NNTP worlds will present themselves again, one at a time, and require solution.
    - zzo38computer 5y ago
      > There are few choices in clients... It is true, although it is not too difficult to write. (A new web browser could include Gemini (in addition to Gopher, HTTP(S), and possibly others).) However, even if you do not have other client software, the "openssl s_client" can be used, too (although having the specialized software works better, it doesn't mean that such specialized software is required). (It also ought to be added into curl I think, but they didn't do that.) > The TLS requirement means no human-readable protocol... I agree that this can be a problem. My suggestion is to add a non-TLS version using "insecure-gemini:" as the URI scheme name. > ...all the same problems which have already been solved in HTTP and NNTP worlds will present themselves again... Gemini can be a substitute for HTTP and Gopher (in some cases); it is not a substitute for NNTP, I think.

by xvilka 5y ago

forgotmypw17 5y ago

I like the idea of Gemini, thanks. In my opinion it has many shortcomings compared to "Web 1.1"

zzo38computer 5y ago
Which shortcomings do you mean, specifically?
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  Here are some shortcomings of Gemini which come to mind... There are few choices in clients... A lot of older hardware is left behind... The TLS requirement means no human-readable protocol... But the biggest one, in my opinion as an experienced IT person, is that it is a "clean start", meaning all the same problems which have already been solved in HTTP and NNTP worlds will present themselves again, one at a time, and require solution.
  - zzo38computer 5y ago
    > There are few choices in clients... It is true, although it is not too difficult to write. (A new web browser could include Gemini (in addition to Gopher, HTTP(S), and possibly others).) However, even if you do not have other client software, the "openssl s_client" can be used, too (although having the specialized software works better, it doesn't mean that such specialized software is required). (It also ought to be added into curl I think, but they didn't do that.) > The TLS requirement means no human-readable protocol... I agree that this can be a problem. My suggestion is to add a non-TLS version using "insecure-gemini:" as the URI scheme name. > ...all the same problems which have already been solved in HTTP and NNTP worlds will present themselves again... Gemini can be a substitute for HTTP and Gopher (in some cases); it is not a substitute for NNTP, I think.