💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000874.gmi captured on 2023-11-04 at 13:10:16. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
It is for the Web but this project has many things in common with Gemini: Official site: https://small-tech.org/ Explanation of the project: https://ar.al/2020/08/07/what-is-the-small-web/ Things they do: https://small-tech.org/research-and-development/
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:05:12AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer said: > https://ar.al/2020/08/07/what-is-the-small-web/ The idea seems solid but from what I see of the implementation it appears exceptionally complex. It is a shame that there is an impression that you need node.js and JavaScript to get bytes into a browser these days. --Matt -- Matthew Ernisse matt at going-flying.com gemini://going-flying.com/
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021, Matthew Ernisse wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:05:12AM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer said: >> https://ar.al/2020/08/07/what-is-the-small-web/ > > The idea seems solid but from what I see of the implementation it appears > exceptionally complex. It is a shame that there is an impression that > you need node.js and JavaScript to get bytes into a browser these days. It?s more like their assumptions are ok. I mean I think we all agree on the privacy need and take-back-the-web thing. But I don?t understand how they switch so quickly from these assumption to yet-another-static-website-generator. Ok it?s in js, maybe kind of new. But woah, there is already a lot of static website generator and I?m not sure to understand their point. Is this only to federate people under their common *.small-web.org public suffix? In what is it different from the *.nohost.me/*.noho.st self-hosting domain from yunohost?? So in the end I?m not really convinced. Or I completely missed their point (what is totally possible). ?tienne ? https://yunohost.org/en/administrate/specific_use_cases/domains/dns_nohost_me
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:20:21PM +0000, ?tienne Deparis said: > It?s more like their assumptions are ok. I mean I think we all agree on the > privacy need and take-back-the-web thing. But I don?t understand how they > switch so quickly from these assumption to > yet-another-static-website-generator. Ok it?s in js, maybe kind of new. But > woah, there is already a lot of static website generator and I?m not sure to > understand their point. Agreed, and then they throw this out there. "... we also need tools specifically optimised for building single-tenant web applications ..." I think part of the problem of the web these days is that everything seems to want to be an application. The small web really can (should?) just be a folder with some files and a web server. It worked for the first 25 years. --Matt As a side question since I just noticed -- why does their smallweb static site generator feature a Twitch.tv replacement above the fold? Who is their audience? -- Matthew Ernisse matt at going-flying.com gemini://going-flying.com/
> As a side question since I just noticed -- why does their smallweb static > site generator feature a Twitch.tv replacement above the fold? Who is > their audience? Owncast is a fediverse replacement for livestreaming (very early alpha stage). I don't think the static site generator incorporates it, I think they just make it easier to install beside your blog/site (in case you want to host a livestream.) Why a static site generator is responsible for installing/configuring another separate web application is a bit odd to me, but that's modern web tooling for you. I do agree though, the concept that "Your site needs an application to manage it" that seems to have been incepted into everyone's minds is a bit ridiculous. Just put some html and css in a folder and point a web server at it. Save yourself the headache.
---
Previous Thread: [tech] gmnigit: show your repository over gemini
Next Thread: [ANN] Em Orbita: Aggregator for Portuguese capsules