💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 001948.gmi captured on 2020-09-24 at 01:32:13. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Phil Leblanc philanc at gmail.com
Fri Jun 26 18:13:59 BST 2020
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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. Iquoted just a bit but maybe the whole paragraph could find its way inthe Gemini FAQ or in a Gemini "vision" document. I _did_ read as muchas I could before posting but didn't see this orientation as clearlystated.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 Mercuryconcept still alive and are members of the community interested init?"
I _did not_ suggest to "throw out TLS" and made it clear in thefollowing discussion that my "gripe" (if I may say!) was not with TLSbut with _mandatory_ TLS.
I just happen to think that the initial http/https was not such a badthing, 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 moreoil 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 thereader"
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 wasmostly intended as a joke.I then made the mistake of answering too seriously to your "pleasedisambiguate" 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. Ido understand now that it is a touchy subject. I am sorry for thenoise.
I think that's all I have to say on this matter.
Heard you loud and clear ;-)
Phil