3 ms·
1. I agree. 2. This would be Gemini. Most people here don't like it either. Also, most gopher sites I visit use UTF-8, and my client (which I wrote---it's no
by spc476 2y ago
1. I agree.
2. This would be Gemini. Most people here don't like it either. Also, most gopher sites I visit use UTF-8, and my client (which I wrote---it's not hard) hasn't had an issue with mojibake.
3. It's not as simple as wrapping TLS around the TCP connection. [1]
4. There were once gopher police?
[1] I talk about it here: https://boston.conman.org/2019/03/31.1 https://boston.conman.org/2019/03/31.1
- contingencies 2y ago3. Break backward compatibility. It's fine. Nobody needs to run an old client these days. I'd worry more about ensuring curl and wget have support than old gopher clients.
- snvzz 2y agoGemini is far from perfect, and yet an immutable spec. A dead end. Just some narcissists' pet project that should never been entertained.
- throw10920 2y agoGemini is, explicitly, an art project. It's not, nor is it meant to be, a serious communication technology. This both explains some of the bizarre (and anti-intellectual) design decisions, and also makes it crystal clear that it shouldn't be used for anything serious (e.g. serving the course website for a class you're teaching).
- smaudet 2y ago3. Hmm. I think the biggest issue then might be the inability to extend the protocol then, not the lack if TLS. Http(s) had at least some back and forth that allowed clients/servers to do protocol negotiation, not perfect, but workable such that normally crashes do not occur... Although speaking of crashes, if your app is as poorly written to easily crash, perhaps it should be re-written - if e.g. gopher were to come back in a meaningful way, that sounds like ripe pickings for security folk.