💾 Archived View for bbs.geminispace.org › u › jdcard › 13651 captured on 2024-08-25 at 07:10:30. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-08-18)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
@Yretek, #clseibold - Yes, I'd like to see the fragment identifiers used to jump to headings within the document. It would also be cool to implement the highlighting scheme discussed at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Text_fragments. I've got a demo page at gemini://jdcard,com/link-to-text-fragments.gmi. Of course it would all depend on clients implementing these features. I think these were discussed and rejected already in the early planning for Gemini.
Jan 09 · 8 months ago
🖥️ zetamacs · 2024-01-09 at 20:07:
@clseibold I suspect we're talking right past each other.
My point in bringing up MS-DOS wasn't to slip obsolete operating systems into this discussion when they shouldn't be used anyway. Talking about Windows systems past their expiration date isn't germane.
There is no apples-to-oranges here - I'm comparing the experience one would have looking up content without first installing additional software, presupposing nothing besides . And in that case, you have the immediacy of an ssh client that is up to the task without much fanfare. That should have been evident enough from previous comments.
Cont'd...
🖥️ zetamacs · 2024-01-09 at 20:16:
@clseibold I said previously that I'm aware this isn't a protocol, but an application leveraging an existing one, which I can appreciate. I'll be the first to say that the authors don't make that distinction crystal clear, but it made sense to me. It "not being a real protocol" presupposes that that is what it should be, and is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps it matters to you.
an actual fact here remains, which is that SSL and SSH have different uses and different tools surrounding them.
No need to get snarky.
And arguing against the suitability of the latter hasn't happened yet, only been stated as a matter of opinion. I don't take issue with the stated usage.
🖥️ zetamacs · 2024-01-09 at 20:42:
@clseibold
You're trying to say that SSL/TLS is factually less accessible
The client they *immediately have on hand* certainly is, yes. Which is what I said.
There are many people who would find SSH to be significantly more inaccessible than installing a program.
And many who would not. I suspect most with an interest in the smolweb fall into this category.
HTTPS, FTPS, SMTP and POP3, XMPP, VPN, VoIP, NNTP, LDAP, IMAP, Gemini, Gopher, Misfin, etc.
All of which are protocols, which I didn't claim SuperTXT was or had to be.
shell access, SFTP, and tunnelling connections, and that's basically it
Current usage need not dictate future usage. It's not prescriptive.
🖥️ zetamacs · 2024-01-09 at 20:43:
but that doesn't make it more accessible, especially when SSH requires the use of a terminal.
I fail to see why that's a significant barrier for anyone but my grandmother when we're talking niche applications and protocols.
Perhaps I've misread the demographic, but I don't think so.
Now, you clearly misunderstood what I meant by "shell access"
Edit: You sniped this in *after* you told me to stop talking to you? I'd be fine if you were only clarifying (guilty!), but shooting more that might merit a response at me when I'm trying to be kind and give you space is uncalled for.
🖥️ zetamacs · 2024-01-09 at 20:45:
@clseibold
The point of saying that is that SuperTXT should not be considered a protocol.
When did anyone, especially myself, say otherwise?
That SSH is a handy way to access it is what I'm considering interesting.
🖥️ zetamacs · 2024-01-09 at 20:49:
@clseibold Again insisting on having that install option.
My claim from the get-go (literally look up at the top of the thread if you don't believe me) was about default configurations and *nothing else*.
Glory.
🖥️ zetamacs · 2024-01-09 at 20:51:
@clseibold You know, I think we can do better than this. It's not a very productive conversation as we're currently pursuing it.
You okay with calling it a mutual misunderstanding and having a nice rest of the day?
🖥️ zetamacs · 2024-01-09 at 21:09:
@clseibold *sigh*
There is no intentional claim about TLS proper. That's silly. My whole intent was to say that fetching a Gemini page with the one tool you've certainly got out of the box that can talk successfully to the server is bound to be less fun than:
ssh supertxt.net
If that was unclear, call it my bad if you like.
especially when wget and curl exist.
Can either of those understand Gemini these days?
All this constant misrepresentation and bad-faith reading has been a waste of life. How unfortunate. But, the day goes on. Enjoy continuing to edit your posts when you think I won't notice.
Since the rest is just snark, I have no further comments, your honor.
🍀 gritty [OP] · 2024-01-09 at 21:40:
alright everyone I think I've got it. I didn't expect 28 comments on this today, but I see what you both /all are saying, so thank you. I think we can all agree that it's neat but just not viable at the moment.
🖥️ admin · 2024-01-10 at 11:46:
Leave me the hell alone, gosh dang!
This is a group discussion, @clseibold, not a competition on who gets the most factual details right. If you don't want someone to talk to you, feel free to mute them (temporarily, if that helps).
I've given you a flair.
superTXT — so I'm trying to wrap my mind around this SuperTXT protocol but I'm just not understanding it all that well. It seems to be a version of gemtext that is accessed via SSH based tools. I haven't tried the graphical browser but was wondering if this is the basis of it?