💾 Archived View for station.martinrue.com › gnuserland › 384d1fb45ba14b54ac11309b5d6be33d captured on 2024-08-31 at 14:40:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-08-18)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Do you believe in Gemini-only content?
I do, but it looks like someone got annoyed... 🤷♂️
https://マリウス.com/gemini-is-solutionism-at-its-worst/
2 years ago · 👍 eph, lykso, birabittoh, akkartik, twotwos, scientiac, owise1, kevinsan, justyb
https://マリウス.com/gemini-is-solutionism-at-its-worst/
throw away all the baggage and instead implement a new Content-Type, which existing browsers then could parse?
To me that's the point. Anyone feel Google making a Gemini browser and dictating Gemtext and "gasp" a Gemini v2 protocol would be a good idea?
is more about exclusion of the mainstream over bringing actual technological advancement
Yeah, that's the problem to me. I want a smolweb, and there's a big web with big players that would pave paradise and put up a parking lot. I want others here, but I don't want **THEM** here. · 2 years ago
What a weird sequence of rants. I gave up, but it's worth stating that early HTTP browsers were typically fetched by FTP, and you may have had to compile them yourself. Not a low hurdle, yet the web happened.
And there's irony in complaining about a gemini link that's a 99% indicator of bullshit-free content vs an HTTP link that's 99% certain to be bullshit-laden.
I can't fathom this type of hostility. There's a profound lesson in psychology to be gleaned somewhere within. · 2 years ago
The "problem" that he/she has with gemini has already been solved. And the solution is called 'web portal'. (And I guess he/she found out about it.)
And a web portal is possible because gemini is just simple. People wanting to use a client can use one. And those who don't they can use a portal.
People wanting to be different can be different and those who doesn't can be themselves.
I don's see gemini being a problem.🤷 · 2 years ago
Preaching to the choir here I know, but, I do think there's a point here about the "exclusion" business - it's really a matter of perspective. If it wasn't for gemini, I'd have to put a considerable amount more work into having my own place on the internet! It's certainly more inclusive for publishing. And, c'mon, having to install one extra program or go looking for a proxy isn't much of a barrier. It's kind of fun, really. · 2 years ago
@cobradile94 Yes, exactly. The barrier helps create a unique space in a way that I don't think would have been possible with something that tried to maintain compatibility with modern browsers. · 2 years ago
Personally, I love that Gemini is it’s own protocol! It makes it feel like a space away from the corporate web. I feel like it wouldn’t have worked as well if it was just built on top of HTTP. · 2 years ago
I read the article a few days after hearing about Gemini and setting up my own capsule. While he makes some decent points on technical matters, I disagree with his main conclusion that using a protocol other than HTTP excludes people. · 2 years ago
He simply misses the point of Gemini. It appears that thusly Gemini is doing its job. · 2 years ago
He has a point regarding privacy: there *are* complicated protocol-level schemes that could have built better privacy protection into Gemini than it has.
I disagree with him regarding the undesirability of exclusivity. I could be wrong on this point, but I don't think Gemini would be getting nearly as much attention, let alone uptake, if modern browsers didn't break when they encountered a "gemini://" link. And "the markup all my content is written in doesn't support Javascript" is much stronger protection against later choosing to incorporate Javascript than "I'll just not insert <script> tags." The inconvenience is a good thing, IMO. Makes the decision "stickier." · 2 years ago
His complaints are silly, but I am one of those who serve Gemini-only content, I do not want handle with the complexity of HTTP/HTML anymore.
I find so comfortable handling a Capsule from the server to GMI files that I don't see any valuable reason to annoy myself with other CMS, no matter what that Markdown is easy to use, managing by yourself the infrastructure necessary is utterly complicated. · 2 years ago
The funny thing is that he's the kind of guy that could code his own client. He has a point on that accesibility to info is a good thing. However, Gemini is becoming more and more accessible and it's easier to keep and maintain than a html site. Trust me, I'm crossposting on Gemini, Gopher and HTML and HTML is the hardest by far!
It's all the little things you have to keep an eye too, especially when doing it by hand. However, I believe a web presence is _helpful_ to reach out for people. · 2 years ago
The whole article came across as entitlement. If you don't like it, don't fucking click it. All these "just one more feature" types get mad that Gemini doesn't have something they want and then scratch their heads like chimps trying to figure out why browsers became so complex only one megacorp can make a good one. · 2 years ago
Sounds like he's annoyed that Gemini isn't yet another extension of HTTP or Telnet (but secure). I see where he's coming from, but I don't agree with most of his criticism. E.g. he talks about introducing another markdown variant in the form of Gemtext. IMO, Gemtext is more of a subset of MD — I'm able to use Gemtext in any markdown editor with little issue besides links (which aren't critical for most MD documents I write; plus (IMO) standard MD links look awful).
Ultimately, he's mad that someone shared a Gemini link instead of HTTP. Would he still have such an issue if someone sent a Gopher link? · 2 years ago