💾 Archived View for gemini.bunburya.eu › newsgroups › gemini › messages › 87a6f7xfb0.fsf@haraya.loca… captured on 2023-04-26 at 13:56:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-04-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid>
Subject: Re: In the news
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 15:26:59 +0800
Message-ID: <87a6f7xfb0.fsf@haraya.local.net>
bunburya <bunburya@tilde.club> writes:
On 30/01/2022 23:43, rtr wrote:
> I've never really thought about this but are there a lot of people being
> all negative nancy about gemini?
Gemini pops up fairly regularly on Hackernews these days, and overall
I would say there is a roughly even split between positive and
negative comments. Criticisms tend to suggest that Gemini is
unnecessary, as we should just use the web but with better practices,
and that gemtext is too simplistic (eg, lack of inline links). In
other words, it is hard to dislodge the myth that Gemini is trying to
replace the web.
I really don't understand the ``well the web can do it so we should
just all use the web.'' If you've read the FAQ for gemini they're
basically saying that they're trying to create a gopher+ of sorts
without going too much into http.
Also. No amount of effort in the web can replicate the consistent
simplicity of {gemini,gopher}. The temptation to ``just add one
more feature'' is too strong because the web allows it. There are
http sites that I've visited that supposedly tout simplicity but
have all fancy crap over it.
Just give me my plain text!
Cheers
--
Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
--
{gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz
Parent:
Re: In the news (by bunburya <bunburya@tilde.club> on Mon, 31 Jan 2022 11:13:37 +0000)
Start of thread:
In the news (by David <david@arch.invalid> on Sat, 29 Jan 2022 19:07:21 +0100)