💾 Archived View for gemini.bunburya.eu › newsgroups › gemini › messages › 63964920@news.ausics.net.g… captured on 2024-02-05 at 09:42:47. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-01-29)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From: not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev)
Subject: Re: Gemini client for legacy systems.
Date: 12 Dec 2022 07:18:24 +1000
Message-ID: <63964920@news.ausics.net>
Pepinno The Great <pepinno@thinkpad.naleco.com.nospam> wrote:
bacardi55 <bac@rdi55.pl> wrote:
>On dim., 11. d?c. 00:09, Pepinno The Great wrote:
>> Does the Gemini protocol mandates TLS 1.2 or higher?
>
>Yes. From the official spec:
>"Servers MUST use TLS version 1.2 or higher and SHOULD use TLS version
>1.3 or higher"
>https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.gmi
Then it is gopher all the way for me.
What kind of retro protocol is that which cannot be run on retro
machines? Gemini can get a ride, for all I care.
Technically TLS 1.2 or higher doesn't rule out a 486, just Debian
2.2 Potato (and even then you might be able to compile recent
OpenSSL libraries for that yourself with a bit of work). A 486 can
still run current Linux kernel releases, and with a bit of work you
can boot it up and run software using modern TLS. I've viewed
webpages in Lynx via modern HTTPS on a 486 this year. I didn't try
Gemini, but if there's a relatively efficient TUI client for it
then that should work too.
Really though, I don't think Gemini is supposed to be a "retro
protocol", meerly a modern-day alternative to the current WWW.
Gopher is indeed far better suited to "retro" applications, and I
too prefer it for its lack of encryption (even outside of "retro"
applications, because unnecessary TLS is a general annoyance
in many ways), as well as plain HTTP where you can still get it.
If the gemini scheme is intended for modern machines (because of its high
version TLS demands), and not for retro machines (which lack such high
version TLS support), then why cannot the gemini goals be accomplished
with just HTML 2.0: that would mean no CSS, no tables, no JavaScript,
and basic form submission capability. Denote it by a new protocol name,
HTTP1:// and be done with it? All the effort to make a "new standard"
would be then spared, as the new standard would be just cherry-picking a
subset of what already exists.
Well yes, that's been said by many people all along. Gemini has
proven attractive to some people anyway, rightly or wrongly.
--
__ __
Parent:
Start of thread:
Children: