💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › s › Gemini › 5149 captured on 2024-02-05 at 12:21:02. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Stumbled upon this article, "Gemini is solutionism at its worst"
"Gemini is solutionism at its worst"
"Bottom line is, if you agree that the modern web has become an awful place, let’s work on changing that for everyone, instead of abandoning it like a bunch of billionaires trying to escape to a different place, before this one collapses."
I think that's where i disagree the most. The "modern web" won't be reformed, not a chance, it will stay the same, or get worse. So what's wrong with creating something new, trying to learn from the mistakes of the past ? A little island of sanity, away from the madness ...
2023-09-08 · 5 months ago · 👍 drh3xx, flipperzero, aRubes, coderwx, hyperreal · 😄 1
😎 flipperzero · Sep 08 at 01:12:
Who says this is for billionaires? are they mistaking the smallnet efforts to be similar to web3's bloated ass money laundering multi level marketing schemes? Sounds like one who smealt it, dealt it. They're clearly projecting, and should absolutely check themselves. I've run into a wide variety of different backgrounds here, more than the cesspool echo chamber vomit that is the big web.
🦀 jeang3nie · Sep 08 at 01:20:
I remember that article. There's an awful lot that the author just ignores, in particular the idea that Gemini is more complex than Gopher, less complex than the Web, and replaces neither. All emphasis on that last part, replaces neither. Gemini is it's own thing. It's not a replacement for the Web and isn't trying to be.
I stopped reading after
completely replacing existing infrastructure and standards that humans have mutually agreed upon
Who exactly agreed on what ? from 1990 to 1996 there was even no agreed-upon standard for HTTP while the whole explosion happened. There was no 'mutually agreed upon' standard. People and institutions *adopted* sets of idea implementations they thought were right. These ideas mostly started in universities by 1 or a few persons and only years after the implementations suceeded the standartization happened. That's just one example. This person is too ignorant about the subject's history to be taken seriously
👻 mediocregopher [...] · Sep 08 at 06:41:
This person seems to have missed "lack of extensibility" as one of Gemini's design goals. Once that enters the picture it's pretty obvious why HTTP is not suitable for what Gemini is trying to do.
They've also apparently decided to start keeping a running tab of "notable" people leaving Gemini, as if that's proof of their technical criticisms being right. It tells me this person doesn't really care, they're just putting on a show for attention.
🐉 gyaradong · Sep 11 at 06:24:
IMO it's not the protocol, it's the browser. The issue is that you cannot up and build a browser that's a rational alternative to Firefox or Chrome. Even just switching off JavaScript in Firefox basically breaks half the web. Switching off cookies turns it into a nightmare space where you can see the demons behind the pretty faces.
Yes there's a small web, but the feature set is so distinct from the modern web that you can probably split out two browsers with mutually exclusive functionality where one would work in the modern web but not small web, and the other would work on small web but not modern.
😺 gemalaya [OP] · Sep 11 at 11:38:
@gyaradong You're right, http is a good protocol, but browsers were left with the liberty of improvising and adding more stuff as time went by. Cookies are a good example of that, and something that should have never been adopted widely, it's an abomination that destroys any semblance of privacy.