💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000232.gmi captured on 2024-05-26 at 15:32:33. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Howdy all! Perhaps the most common criticism I've read of Gemini comes from people who think defining a new protocol whose capabilities are very closely matched by a subset of an existing one is a waste of time. Why build something from scratch when you can just build webpages which don't use javascript or iframes etc., and serve them with servers that don't send cookies and E-tags? It's a fair enough question on the face of it, and I want our FAQ to address it. I think everybody here understands the tremendous difference between that and what we're trying to do with Gemini, but it's a difficult thing to boil down to a succinct answer. I have written up some of my thoughts in the traditional long form at: gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/~solderpunk/cornedbeef/why-not-just-use-a -subset-of-http-and-html.gmi I am keen to hear people's thoughts, both on what I've written and on the question in general, and receive suggestions on what good responses are to people who ask this question. Cheers, Solderpunk
typo: - Javsacript - buliding I 'm Totally agreed with the content. Bloated browser, auto-playing video, ads, all of this is against rational use of energy and human brain. freD.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 05:25:02PM +0000, defdefred wrote: > typo: > - Javsacript > - buliding Thanks, fixed! Cheers, Solderpunk
It maybe an extremist point of view, but the possibility to link to other protocol is the "beginning of the end" for the SafeWeb. How about using a web sanitizer gateway accessible via gemini protocol? freD.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 03:36:54PM +0000, solderpunk wrote: Hi! quoting from the mentioned article: "[...] Safeweb status is inherently unstable by virtue of being a subset of something greater [...]" This, in my opinion, is the key concept of the document. I would say that this is a very problematic equilibrium as the super-set of Safeweb has been exploited or even designed to be "unsafe" (at least for the privacy of the users). Bye! C.
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 15:36:54 +0000 solderpunk <solderpunk at SDF.ORG> wrote: > I am keen to hear people's thoughts, both on what I've written and on > the question in general, and receive suggestions on what good > responses are to people who ask this question. I think the general thrust of this post is solid, but I want to address this part in particular. Not because I disagree with it, but to provide my own answer. > Why not just build non-evil websites using the existing technology, > instead of building something new from the ground up? I could, but I don't want to. It's too much like work. (I build government web apps at my day job.)
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, solderpunk wrote: > to boil down to a succinct answer. I have written up some of my > thoughts in the traditional long form at: > > gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/~solderpunk/cornedbeef/why-not-just-use -a-subset-of-http-and-html.gmi > > I am keen to hear people's thoughts, both on what I've written and on > the question in general, and receive suggestions on what good responses > are to people who ask this question. I have written up a shorter version of roughly the same argument here: gemini://gemini.ucant.org/meta/why-gemini.gemini Mk -- Martin Keegan, +44 7779 296469, @mk270, https://mk.ucant.org/
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 03:46:56AM +0100, Martin Keegan wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2020, solderpunk wrote: > I have written up a shorter version of roughly the same argument here: > > gemini://gemini.ucant.org/meta/why-gemini.gemini Thanks for sharing this! If I end up supplementing a short answer to this in the FAQ with links to longer pieces on the matter, do you mind me including this one? Cheers, Solderpunk
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, solderpunk wrote: > > Thanks for sharing this! If I end up supplementing a short answer to > this in the FAQ with links to longer pieces on the matter, do you mind > me including this one? Yes yes of course! It probably needs a complete rewrite by yet someone else, but until then it's good on its own terms. Mk -- Martin Keegan, +44 7779 296469, @mk270, https://mk.ucant.org/
---