3 ms·

You must consider the use cases, though. With Gopher, if an attacker knows who connected to which server, they can normally deduce the transmitted content too,

You must consider the use cases, though. With Gopher, if an attacker knows who connected to which server, they can normally deduce the transmitted content too, since (IME) gopherholes tend to be structured as static blogs. Gopher is not the Web, you aren't going to buy stuff or log into your bank account, you will mainly be downloading & reading plain text. And there is an easily overlooked benefit of no encryption for a niche protocol: it's much easier to implement in resource constrained environments, e.g. very old computers. The Web doesn't compete in this area, so it's perfect for a smaller alternative like Gopher.

giantrobot 2y ago
> The Web doesn't compete in this area, so it's perfect for a smaller alternative like Gopher. This is just the goofiest assertion. Old computers have been in the Web since both the Web and those computers were new. You can transfer the same plain text content over HTTP as you can Gopher. It takes very little in the way of resources to handle HTTP 1.1 on the client side.
- chongli 2y ago
  Have you tried browsing the web recently on a vintage computer running a 90’s browser? It works on only a minority of sites. The vast majority are broken due to either https or JavaScript. So yes, in principle you can use the web on those old devices but it really doesn’t work in practice. The strong desire for gopher is for a protocol where every server you might want to connect to actually works on your ancient client.
  - giantrobot 2y ago
    If you're going to be constrained to a tiny subset of servers running gopher, you can constrain yourself to web servers catering to old clients. Gopher adds nothing there, it's just a less capable protocol than HTTP. I'm not opposed to someone running a gopher server for fun. I don't hate the protocol. There's just a really strange meme that gopher somehow facilitates something the Web does not. If you want a hierarchy of directories with documents, the web can do that and be used by the software everyone already has in their pocket.
    - immibis 2y ago
      I think the advantage for them is having a guarantee. If it's Gopher, then it works. No trial and error needed.
    - chongli 2y ago
      I think the draw of gopher is that one hundred percent of gopher servers work on old clients. Whereas with http you just don’t know. A website that works fine on an old browser can link to a website that doesn’t. That makes the whole thing feel broken. So the desire for gopher is the desire for something reliable, consistent, self-contained, and separate from the web.
  - jstanley 2y ago
    > Have you tried browsing the web recently on a vintage computer running a 90’s browser? It works on only a minority of sites. Compared to gopher which works on even fewer?

giantrobot 2y ago

> The Web doesn't compete in this area, so it's perfect for a smaller alternative like Gopher. This is just the goofiest assertion. Old computers have been in the Web since both the Web and those computers were new. You can transfer the same plain text content over HTTP as you can Gopher. It takes very little in the way of resources to handle HTTP 1.1 on the client side.

chongli 2y ago
Have you tried browsing the web recently on a vintage computer running a 90’s browser? It works on only a minority of sites. The vast majority are broken due to either https or JavaScript. So yes, in principle you can use the web on those old devices but it really doesn’t work in practice. The strong desire for gopher is for a protocol where every server you might want to connect to actually works on your ancient client.
- giantrobot 2y ago
  If you're going to be constrained to a tiny subset of servers running gopher, you can constrain yourself to web servers catering to old clients. Gopher adds nothing there, it's just a less capable protocol than HTTP. I'm not opposed to someone running a gopher server for fun. I don't hate the protocol. There's just a really strange meme that gopher somehow facilitates something the Web does not. If you want a hierarchy of directories with documents, the web can do that and be used by the software everyone already has in their pocket.
  - immibis 2y ago
    I think the advantage for them is having a guarantee. If it's Gopher, then it works. No trial and error needed.
  - chongli 2y ago
    I think the draw of gopher is that one hundred percent of gopher servers work on old clients. Whereas with http you just don’t know. A website that works fine on an old browser can link to a website that doesn’t. That makes the whole thing feel broken. So the desire for gopher is the desire for something reliable, consistent, self-contained, and separate from the web.
- jstanley 2y ago
  > Have you tried browsing the web recently on a vintage computer running a 90’s browser? It works on only a minority of sites. Compared to gopher which works on even fewer?