On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 21:48, Phil Leblanc <philanc at gmail.com> wrote: > It relates to "_explainability_": explain sockets and basic network > to a beginner and they will grasp Gemini without pain - it could even > be a basic example of how to use sockets > In my humble opinion, this extends to TLS too. Tell a beginner about asymmetric cryptography and how it can be used to negotiate a key for symmetric cryptography, and they will understand the general concept of TLS and thus "grasp Gemini without pain". I remember a Python core developer coming up with a nice motto for a > Python conference many years ago: "It fits my brain". Gemini, without > TLS fits my brain. A bicycle, even an old car may fit my brain. A > modern car does not anymore. > I have two issues with this argument. The first one is that whoever uses it, uses their brain as the golden standard. The second one is that it assumes that "basic networking" is easy to understand. I once spent weeks and weeks in low-level TCP debugging at my day job, and obviously trying to learn whatever I can to facilitate the work. After long days of reading RFCs and investigating Wireshark dumps, I still can't say I understand TCP (let alone IP or Ethernet, let alone the complete network stack). I once researched what it would take to implement an ethernet adapter on an FPGA and it's a huge amount of work. I've never taken a freewheel or a derailleur apart, yet I fully understand how they work. TCP/IP I've spent man-months on, yet I only have a surface understanding.
---
Previous in thread (42 of 51): 🗣️ colecmac (a) protonmail.com (colecmac (a) protonmail.com)
Next in thread (44 of 51): 🗣️ solderpunk (solderpunk (a) SDF.ORG)