5 ms·

or: "An argument for Gemini." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)#Design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)#Design

by RunSet 4y ago

woodruffw 4y ago
I've tried to drum up my own interest in Gemini, but it feels very NIH. Given that you can serve plaintext (or barebones HTML) over the Web and that every browser will still happily speak HTTP/1.0 or even HTTP/0.9, I don't understand the draw (other than the nostalgic aesthetic).
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  no JS no trackers or ads no need for a CA it's much easier to create a browser for it, it's in fact something a single developer can do in a weekend project it's not controlled by any corporation
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    It doesn't do most of the things we use the WWW for.
    - krapp 4y ago
      That's supposed to be the point. Gemini is the techie version of running off into the woods to join an anarcho-primitivist commune or an aescetic monastery.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      being limited is one of the selling points of Gemini.
  - notriddle 4y ago
    It mostly only solves problems on the consumer side. Only one of these downsides directly affects publishers. * If you don't want JS, don't use it. * If you don't want trackers or ads, don't put them in. * This is the only publisher-touching downside, and LetsEncrypt is an effective mitigation. * If you want to make a site Lynx-compatible, test it in Lynx. * The downsides of this are too diffuse to immediately drive demand. Nobody is directly impacted by it.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > Only one of these downsides directly affects publishers. on the client side it ensures that JS, ADS, trackers etc won't be there and the client can bet there will be no surprise Gemini is the equivalent of "make the impossible states impossible" The best a malevolent publisher can do is look at the logs, because not even the transparent pixel is allowed. It's worth pointing out that the goal of Gemini is not to replace the WEB and that it it is still possible to publish pure HTML web sites with the same characteristics (but for how long?) also Gemini has no headers so no cookies, that, depending on the platform, could be out of the control of the publisher. I am working (slowly) on some Gemini project Mainly because there is no money involved in it and monetisation is not a thing. Gemini, for example, makes it really easy to build search engines that actually work and cannot be weaponized against their users Because the protocol is so limited that it's impossible, or highly impractical, to follow that route (no money also means no incentive)
- 0x445442 4y ago
  Yeah, I think a distinction needs to be made between bastardized JS laden applications and documents with embedded rich media. It’s interesting the four bullet points in the link all mention documents but HTTP hasn’t been about documents for a long time.
- ainar-g 4y ago
  From my understanding, the draw is to “start over” and create a completely new hypertext ecosystem where script-heavy advertising-laden sites just aren't technically possible. Or, at the very least, extremely impractical. It's a moonshot, but I guess that's one of the reasons they called it Gemini, heh.
- chrismorgan 4y ago
  HTTP/0.9 died long ago. Chromium shows an ERR_INVALID_HTTP_RESPONSE error page, and Firefox renders the response body as preformatted plain text rather than as HTML.
- Cyberdog 4y ago
  A while back I hammered out an idea I call KyuWeb, which specifies a document-based web using existing standards like HTTP and reinvents as few wheels as possible. I haven't had time/skill to hammer out a complete client implementation yet, but I enjoy hearing feedback from people who have looked over the specification. Have a look and see if it's to your taste: https://github.com/GarrettAlbright/KyuWeb https://github.com/GarrettAlbright/KyuWeb
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yoro46 4y ago
How exactly does linking a Wikipedia page to some minimalist cult's redesign of Gopher present an argument for Gemini?

or: "An argument for Gemini." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)#Design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)#Design

by RunSet 4y ago

or: "An argument for Gemini." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)#Design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)#Design

woodruffw 4y ago

I've tried to drum up my own interest in Gemini, but it feels very NIH. Given that you can serve plaintext (or barebones HTML) over the Web and that every browser will still happily speak HTTP/1.0 or even HTTP/0.9, I don't understand the draw (other than the nostalgic aesthetic).

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
no JS no trackers or ads no need for a CA it's much easier to create a browser for it, it's in fact something a single developer can do in a weekend project it's not controlled by any corporation
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  It doesn't do most of the things we use the WWW for.
  - krapp 4y ago
    That's supposed to be the point. Gemini is the techie version of running off into the woods to join an anarcho-primitivist commune or an aescetic monastery.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    being limited is one of the selling points of Gemini.
- notriddle 4y ago
  It mostly only solves problems on the consumer side. Only one of these downsides directly affects publishers. * If you don't want JS, don't use it. * If you don't want trackers or ads, don't put them in. * This is the only publisher-touching downside, and LetsEncrypt is an effective mitigation. * If you want to make a site Lynx-compatible, test it in Lynx. * The downsides of this are too diffuse to immediately drive demand. Nobody is directly impacted by it.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Only one of these downsides directly affects publishers. on the client side it ensures that JS, ADS, trackers etc won't be there and the client can bet there will be no surprise Gemini is the equivalent of "make the impossible states impossible" The best a malevolent publisher can do is look at the logs, because not even the transparent pixel is allowed. It's worth pointing out that the goal of Gemini is not to replace the WEB and that it it is still possible to publish pure HTML web sites with the same characteristics (but for how long?) also Gemini has no headers so no cookies, that, depending on the platform, could be out of the control of the publisher. I am working (slowly) on some Gemini project Mainly because there is no money involved in it and monetisation is not a thing. Gemini, for example, makes it really easy to build search engines that actually work and cannot be weaponized against their users Because the protocol is so limited that it's impossible, or highly impractical, to follow that route (no money also means no incentive)
0x445442 4y ago
Yeah, I think a distinction needs to be made between bastardized JS laden applications and documents with embedded rich media. It’s interesting the four bullet points in the link all mention documents but HTTP hasn’t been about documents for a long time.
ainar-g 4y ago
From my understanding, the draw is to “start over” and create a completely new hypertext ecosystem where script-heavy advertising-laden sites just aren't technically possible. Or, at the very least, extremely impractical. It's a moonshot, but I guess that's one of the reasons they called it Gemini, heh.
chrismorgan 4y ago
HTTP/0.9 died long ago. Chromium shows an ERR_INVALID_HTTP_RESPONSE error page, and Firefox renders the response body as preformatted plain text rather than as HTML.
Cyberdog 4y ago
A while back I hammered out an idea I call KyuWeb, which specifies a document-based web using existing standards like HTTP and reinvents as few wheels as possible. I haven't had time/skill to hammer out a complete client implementation yet, but I enjoy hearing feedback from people who have looked over the specification. Have a look and see if it's to your taste: https://github.com/GarrettAlbright/KyuWeb https://github.com/GarrettAlbright/KyuWeb

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yoro46 4y ago

How exactly does linking a Wikipedia page to some minimalist cult's redesign of Gopher present an argument for Gemini?