On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 11:04 AM solderpunk <solderpunk at sdf.org> wrote: > [...] > Ultimately, Gemini is supposed to be a practical protocol to solve a > concrete, real-world problem: [...] I don't want Gemini to be a > beautiful object of appreciation for hackers that most people have no > use for (there's no shortage of these!), I want it to be a viable > lifeboat for evacuees from the web. The first-class application is > computer literate non-developers using "normal computers" and software > other people wrote to read meaningful textual content with a reasonable > expectation of privacy. I think this is the best summary of the overall project direction. I quoted just a bit but maybe the whole paragraph could find its way in the Gemini FAQ or in a Gemini "vision" document. I _did_ read as much as I could before posting but didn't see this orientation as clearly stated.elsewhere. > I am happy to make it simpler, more beautiful, > more hackable, more general purpose, friendlier to low power computers > and slow networks, to whatever extent is possible without interfering > with its seaworthiness as a lifeboat. [...] > But throwing out TLS so that it can be more readily implemented by > somebody who just learned what a socket is yesterday is ultimately > self-defeating from the lifeboat perspective. Please note that my initial post was just a question: "Is this Mercury concept still alive and are members of the community interested in it?" I _did not_ suggest to "throw out TLS" and made it clear in the following discussion that my "gripe" (if I may say!) was not with TLS but with _mandatory_ TLS. I just happen to think that the initial http/https was not such a bad thing, contrary to the orthodox view in the HTTPS/Web world of today -- I won't explain why I think that because I don't want to pour more oil on the fire :-) > The mandatory encryption in Gemini is an > important, functional, deliberate part of the lifeboat design. It would > be a bad lifeboat without out. Good. It clarifies things. Maybe this (and other parts of your answer) could be prepended to the Mercury document as a caveat / "note to the reader" > > When we *do* chase improvements in these other regards without > compromising our role as a lifeboat, we also need to keep a sense of > perspective, make our criteria clear, make measurements and not trust > our guts, etc. I'm all for a lower power, greener internet. But if you > really want to push in that direction hard, you need to make radical > departures from the basic paradigms that the web and Gemini are both > built around. > [...]Gemini is > never going to be the absolute best choice for low power consumption, > for low bandwidth, etc. That's not so say we shouldn't give those > things any thought, but we needn't bend over backward for 1% or 2% > savings because it just doesn't make sense. We should concern ourselves > with the "low hanging fruit" of these problems. Maybe the whole discussion got side-tracked by my SUV analogy. It was mostly intended as a joke. I then made the mistake of answering too seriously to your "please disambiguate" question. I am sorry for that. BTW I loved your "vegans carrying loads of USB keys on their bikes". Good one! :-) > > Be aware that "Mercury", as I sketched it, was a "conceptual > navigational aid" for me to try to grapple with the question of whether > or not Gemini was becoming "too complex" (and one that most people - not > all, but most - had a very negative reaction to). I didn't know that. I guess this is why I asked on the mailing list. I do understand now that it is a touchy subject. I am sorry for the noise. > I think that's all I have to say on this matter. Heard you loud and clear ;-) Phil
---
Previous in thread (47 of 51): 🗣️ Petite Abeille (petite.abeille (a) gmail.com)
Next in thread (49 of 51): 🗣️ solderpunk (solderpunk (a) SDF.ORG)