[HN Gopher] Gemini is a little gem
___________________________________________________________________
Gemini is a little gem
Author : soapdog
Score : 128 points
Date : 2022-01-25 14:26 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (andregarzia.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (andregarzia.com)
| zepto wrote:
| > The Web is your orchestral music, Gemini is low-fi chiptune.
|
| Likening the web to orchestral music is questionable.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Noisecore might be a better comparison.
| gwern wrote:
| The other end is questionable too. IMO, Gemini has _too many_
| features to be the 'low-fi chiptune' of hypertext. Every time
| I look at it, I come away thinking it is not in any sweet spot
| but perhaps the worst of both worlds: too featureful to truly
| foster creativity by constraint, and yet lacking entirely too
| many features to compete with a simple robust Markdown static
| site stack.
|
| If we wanted the pixel art or low-fi chiptune of hypertext,
| both historically and in terms of esthetic, we'd be targeting
| classic textfiles: 80-col ASCII art .txt (maaaybe with the
| absolute bare minimum of adding a clickable link for navigation
| to make up for the lack of a TUI BBS interface wrapping the
| individual text files).
| zepto wrote:
| That's pretty much gopher already.
| shuntress wrote:
| > Since the markup language is so simple, it lowers the barrier
| of entry for those wanting to produce content
|
| I see this as one of the major problems with The Web.
|
| It's just too technically difficult for a normal person to make a
| useful reliable website. That naturally drives people from the
| open web into closed web-replacements like facebook.
|
| EDIT: With that said. I can't really get behind something like
| gemini whole-heartedly. It just feels like adding rendering
| support to browsers for gemini style markdown and serving them
| with appropriate Content-Type headers over regular HTTP would be
| a better way to do it.
|
| EDIT 2: Or campaigning to add support for the protocol in common
| browsers. That is, after all, why URLs include the protocol and I
| know people here are extremely fond of bashing client
| implementations for not displaying the protocol part of a URL.
| [deleted]
| lbotos wrote:
| I think you are conflating two points.
|
| > It's just too technically difficult for a normal person to
| make a useful reliable website.
|
| There are many hosting providers from the hostgators of the
| world to wix and squarespace that make this pretty easy if you
| want to _host_ content.
|
| > That naturally drives people from the open web into closed
| web-replacements like facebook.
|
| The _social_ aspect is what drives people to social networks.
| All of their friends are there.
|
| Many people don't want to just host content, they want chat,
| video, messenger, photo storage. For those that don't need it
| widely accessible, group chats seemed to have filled gap
| between forum <-> text message/email.
| shuntress wrote:
| That all still relates to the technical difficulty of hosting
| (and, to be a bit more specific, account/identity
| management.)
|
| Facebook doesn't have some magic technical secret that makes
| chat, video, messenger, storage, etc handled by their servers
| somehow different than if it were handled by a server in your
| home.
| nine_k wrote:
| Account and identity management is naturally slightly non-
| trivial, once you consider things outside the happy path.
| kkjjkgjjgg wrote:
| What is Gemini? Google turns up a Bitcoin Exchange and lots of
| astrology?
| Jtsummers wrote:
| There's a link to the description in the first paragraph of the
| article, and elsewhere in this discussion already:
| https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
| airstrike wrote:
| Ironically, there are two current projects competing for the
| Gemini name: the Winklevi's bitcoin exchange (indubitably named
| after their twinship) and the more-than-a-protocol for a no-
| frills version of the World Wide Web, which is what TFA is
| talking about.
| throw10920 wrote:
| The problem isn't Gemini, the problem is Gemini marketing.
|
| Gemini enthusiasts (or, at least the ones I've seen posts from,
| most notably ddevault) market Gemini as a replacement (edit: in
| whole or part, it doesn't matter, the argument is the same) for
| "the web".
|
| Then, when you point out that Gemini has basically none of the
| features of "the web" (and is incapable of supporting the vast
| majority of its content, and even the vast majority of its _good_
| content), they then say that "oh, you don't _need_ those
| features, inline images are an anti-pattern! " Or something.
|
| The problem isn't that Gemini has no features, the problem is
| that it's being marketed as a replacement (edit: in whole or in
| non-trivial part, it doesn't matter) for the web, which is it
| _clearly_ unsuited for.
|
| Gemini is bad at conveying almost any content except text, which
| also means that it's unsuitable for scientific papers, education,
| browser games, social media (even for less "social" social media,
| like Reddit and HN, where you could be exchanging purely
| technical information), web services, web applications
| (disclaimer: I think that web applications are generally slow and
| dumb, but I'd much rather use HN from my browser than download a
| dedicated .deb just for it), wikis and encyclopedias, Stack
| Overflow, search engines, and various other web things that your
| life would be significantly less great without.
|
| So, by all means, use Gemini. Just don't say that it's a
| "replacement" for the web (edit: not even part of it - Gemini
| does so little that the comparison is entirely invalid), or
| "better" than the web (or associated technology). It is its own
| thing with its own community that is entirely complementary to
| the web, and nothing more.
|
| If _you_ want to go back to the internet dark ages without
| Wikipedia, Google, Stack Overflow, Compiler Explorer, and
| Shadertoy, have fun - just don 't drag me down with you.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Gemini really seems like throwing the baby out with the bath
| water. The primary gripe seems to be that they don't like
| javascript and modern web tracking. But in the process they
| lost inline links, images, video, and a bunch of other things
| which are useful for reading static documents.
| nathell wrote:
| In 2019, I wrote about the need for a web of documents [0],
| where I wrote about the importance of having static documents
| and sketched another approach.
|
| Gemini is a web of documents. A rudimentary one, but very
| content-focused - the signal-to-noise ratio is typically much
| higher than on WWW. You can visit any capsule in the
| Geminispace and have full confidence that it'll only serve
| you gemtext to read.
|
| [0]: https://blog.danieljanus.pl/2019/10/07/web-of-documents/
| throw10920 wrote:
| On a technological level, the web that we have now is _far_
| better suited to being a web of documents than Gemini is or
| ever will be.
|
| It's one thing to say "we're going to build our own silo of
| high-quality content", but another to intentionally cripple
| its technical capabilities, which is what happened with
| Gemini.
|
| Gemini, the protocol, is extremely bad even for making a
| web of documents.
|
| Gemini, the network of content, might have a higher SNR
| than the web - but that's no excuse for pushing a protocol
| that is flat-out hostile to the transfer of information and
| knowledge.
| cartesius13 wrote:
| This is probably the most annoying straw man argument against
| Gemini. One of the first things you see in their official page
| is:
|
| "Gemini is a new internet protocol which:
|
| Is heavier than gopher Is lighter than the web Will not replace
| either"
|
| And if you hang out and talk to people using it you find out
| that most, if not all, of them are well aware that Gemini will
| not and can not replace the Web.
|
| Even Drew Devault has said this about Gemini: "Gemini does not
| solve all of the web's problems, but it addresses a subset of
| its use-cases better than the web does, and that excites me. I
| want to discard the parts of the web that Gemini does better,
| and explore other solutions for anything that's left of the web
| which is worth keeping". And don't think anyone here in good
| faith will say that this is "marketing Gemini as a Web
| replacement". You are imagining these marketers and arguing
| against them
| throw10920 wrote:
| > "I want to discard the parts of the web that Gemini does
| better, and explore other solutions for anything that's left
| of the web which is worth keeping"
|
| You conveniently left off the next part of that sentence:
| "(hint: much of it is not)" It's pretty clear that ddevault
| thinks that Gemini can replace a large fraction of the web
| (which is the issue under dispute).
|
| The difference between "Gemini can replace the whole web",
| "Gemini can replace a large fraction of the web", and "Gemini
| can replace anything more than a vanishingly tiny sliver of
| the web" is largely irrelevant, as all of them are false, and
| my argument reads the same if you substitute either of those
| other two phrases in.
| agumonkey wrote:
| to me what gemini lacks, is a sense of information ergonomics
|
| so far it seems less usable than a badly coded as400 terminal
| applicatoin
| s5806533 wrote:
| Did ddevault specifically say that Gemini should be regarded as
| a replacement for the web? I never read him that way. As far as
| I can tell, people are constantly stressing the converse,
| namely that Gemini is not supposed to be the next web. It's
| even in the FAQ [1] -- if that's not part of the "marketing
| material", then I don't know what is. It would be very kind if
| you could provide specific citations to substantiate your claim
| about Gemini marketing.
|
| [1] see 1.6 in https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/faq.gmi
| throw10920 wrote:
| Right in that FAQ is the phrase "You may think of Gemini as
| "the web, stripped right back to its essence"". To a
| technical person, "foo, stripped right down to its essence"
| means that this thing is directly competing with foo - or, at
| the very least, that it _exists in the same realm_ as foo.
| Gemini does not exist in the same realm as the web, nor is it
| at all similar to "the web, stripped right back to its
| essence".
|
| The fact that occasionally fans might disclaim that it's only
| meant to replace "part of" the web is materially irrelevant -
| Gemini isn't capable of replacing _any_ nontrivial fraction
| of it. (its fans claim it is, though - "I want to discard
| the parts of the web that Gemini does better, and explore
| other solutions for anything that's left of the web which is
| worth keeping (hint: much of it is not).")[1]
|
| [1] https://drewdevault.com/2020/11/01/What-is-Gemini-
| anyway.htm...
| s5806533 wrote:
| I will concede that Gemini folk sometimes have a rather
| narrow definition of what the "essence" of the web is,
| namely, that the web is basically just a medium for
| hypertext. In the early days of Tim Berners-Lee this was
| true, though. And I still think that hypertext (as opposed
| to "web applications") represents a nontrivial fraction of
| the web (see Wikipedia and, to a lesser degree, blogs).
|
| Drew Devault makes a very valid point: that the web today
| is at the mercy of Google, because it depends on browser
| technology that has become so complex that only Google (and
| maybe a foundation entirely dependent on Google) can
| deliver it. An ad company! So we (as humanity) have to find
| ways to replace the web, step by step. And Drew says it
| right there: "Gemini [...] addresses a subset of its use-
| cases better than the web does." And for the other use-
| cases (i.e., besides hypertext), other replacements have to
| be found.
|
| So I still think that the marketing is way more nuanced
| than you are saying.
| rdiddly wrote:
| This is kind of a repeat of one of the straw man arguments
| mentioned in the article. If it's a response to how Gemini is
| being marketed (marketed?) then possibly the "marketers" are to
| blame, but I would have to see for myself, whether they're just
| saying "Hey here's something nifty" or going all full-blown
| "Hey here is the one true good right way and the solution to
| all problems and everything else is wrong and bad and anyone
| who doesn't go along is a horrifying evil person etc. and
| you're either with us or against us!" Sometimes the former
| quickly turns into the latter on the internet.
| throw10920 wrote:
| Please don't accuse me of strawmanning without providing
| concrete evidence for it.
| hprotagonist wrote:
| >Instead of simply commenting on Hacker News like I did in
| previous similar posts, I thought I'd write a little blog post I
| could link there and in future discussions.
|
| ... published via https on a website, even.
| sudobash1 wrote:
| Since HN is on a https website, I think this makes sense. As
| the article says, Gemini is not going to (and shouldn't)
| replace the web:
|
| > Gemini is its own thing that will co-exist with the Web.
|
| So I think being published on the web for other people on the
| web makes sence and is not antithetical.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| Dunno, I publish most of my content on both gemini and https.
| One does not necessarily exclude the other.
| thewakalix wrote:
| Yes? It's not Fight Club.
| jalino23 wrote:
| I downloaded the Lagrange browser. but how do I find content?
| tpoacher wrote:
| start with geminispace.info
|
| enjoy the rabbit hole
| makeworld wrote:
| Search engine: geminispace.info
|
| Protocol homepage: gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/
|
| Feed aggregator (one of many): gemini://warmedal.se/~antenna/
|
| Curated Gemini directory: gemini://medusae.space/
| velcrovan wrote:
| The key to understanding it is just not to expect it to have mass
| appeal, ever. It lowers barriers _for developers and tech
| hobbyists_. It is a nice crunchy area for developers to have fun
| with that doesn't require herculean feats of programming to serve
| or consume. It 's like ham radio.
|
| My only beef with it is we already have gopher!
| spc476 wrote:
| But gopher doesn't have TLS. Yes, there are clients that
| attempt to make TLS connections to gopher servers and will fall
| back to plain TCP on failure, but that's a hack (and a pretty
| annoying one at that).
| owroomexorcist wrote:
| What's wrong with not having TLS? If it's just for hobbiests
| to share text documents, why include a TLS layer?
| capableweb wrote:
| Suddenly you can't trust anything you're being served as
| there are so many endpoints you could be MITM'd at. Reading
| a text about some experience someone had? Snippets from
| that text could have been replaced if you are not using any
| cryptographic protocol what so ever.
| owroomexorcist wrote:
| Fair point. But if we're talking about a protocol not
| meant for the mainstream, is it really an attack vector
| to worry about?
| spc476 wrote:
| For some, yes.
| harryvederci wrote:
| I upvoted both this and the "Gemini is Solutionism at its Worst"
| post mentioned.
|
| It's a radical idea, but the truth is probably somewhere in the
| middle.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| What is "radical" about Gemini?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| It's a new internet protocol not designed to make somebody
| rich.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| HTTP and Gopher both filled that role last century so I'm
| not certain how that's radical. Admittedly, part of
| Gopher's failure in the market was that someone, U of M,
| tried to get money out of licensing it, but that came after
| its initial release.
|
| What else is radical about it?
| jl6 wrote:
| 1) Restraint, and 2) the concept of it being finished and
| not extensible.
| seanw444 wrote:
| This was weird timing. Haven't seen a post on Gemini on here in a
| while, and I just started yesterday building an Express-like
| Gemini server framework in Go, to get more familiar with Go.
| tharne wrote:
| I'm really rooting for this project. Sure it's probably over-
| idealistic and not entirely practical, but I think that's part of
| the appeal - a group of folks trying to build a better web and
| having fun doing it.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I have no idea what we are talking about, here. Can someone point
| me to a good, short introduction?
| [deleted]
| leephillips wrote:
| https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
|
| https://www.linuxpromagazine.com/index.php/Issues/2021/245/T...
| saxonww wrote:
| Thank you. Gemini is also a crypto exchange so I went into
| this thinking it was another article trying to justify Web3.
| leephillips wrote:
| Oh, I didn't know about that.
| alamortsubite wrote:
| I just read the post and take it as a good introduction. That's
| about as much as I've read about Gemini, though, so maybe I'm
| wrong.
|
| EDIT: The first few paragraphs of the post might lead you to
| believe it doesn't serve as an introduction, so maybe skip
| those.
| tephra wrote:
| Gemini is a neat little protocol with a neat community around
| it. https://gemini.circumlunar.space/
| skybrian wrote:
| One problem is the way Gemini and Mastodon (and even Twitter at
| one time) are often promoted:
|
| > Once you have a client that supports it, you're free to enter
| the ecosystem. Once there, you'll notice that it is composed of
| many vibrant communities. There are artists creating cool
| experiments, writers and essayists pouring their hearts and
| brains out, etc. You can find a tribe for you or start a new
| thing.
|
| I assume this is true for the person who wrote it, but finding
| people who are interesting is often a problem. There is lots of
| noise and I have trouble finding "vibrant" communities that are
| relevant to me. I'm following only two interesting people on
| Mastodon after several years and I found them because links to
| interesting things they wrote were posted to a link-sharing site.
|
| Specific examples beat abstract arguments. The best way to
| promote Gemini would be to quote and link to interesting content
| you found on Gemini.
|
| And that means you're playing the same social game as everyone
| else, doesn't it?
| mediocregopher wrote:
| > Also, focusing on protocol only makes one miss the rest of
| Gemini, which is the ecosystem and people who are having a great
| time using it. Sometimes, it feels to me like someone is at a
| party ranting about the music not being good enough while there
| is a smiling crowd dancing and having fun.
|
| This is the biggest point, imo. We don't all have to like the
| same things, we don't have to all use the same tools, we don't
| have to belong to the same communities. There's room on the web
| for all of us.
|
| Gemini appeals to me as someone who appreciates well designed
| constraints. The fact that HTTP+HTML can accomplish the same
| things is not only missing the point but is actively against the
| point.
| tharne wrote:
| > We don't all have to like the same things, we don't have to
| all use the same tools, we don't have to belong to the same
| communities.
|
| This is one the main reasons I have a hobby computer just for
| playing around with openBSD. There's something really
| refreshing (and fun!) about a project that's just trying to do
| it's own thing without pleasing everyone and their mother.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "This is the biggest point, imo. We don't all have to like the
| same things, we don't have to all use the same tools, we don't
| have to belong to the same communities. There's room on the web
| for all of us."
|
| Exactly right.
|
| Tech companies that rely directly or indirectly on the survival
| and expansion of web advertising, i.e., most of them, prefer a
| world where web users do not think independently.
|
| It is easier to advertise on (and manipulate) a web where every
| participant likes the same things, uses the same tools, and
| belongs to the same communities.
| ReleaseCandidat wrote:
| I see, Gemini is not to make the life of content creators easier,
| but the life of the server and client implementers.
|
| The need for TLS is a bit strange regarding this, especially if
| they encourage the use of self-signed certificates.
| 4 TLS Use of TLS for Gemini transactions is mandatory.
| Clients can validate TLS connections however they like (including
| not at all) but the strongly RECOMMENDED approach is to
| implement a lightweight "TOFU" certificate-pinning system which
| treats self-signed certificates as first- class citizens.
| This greatly reduces TLS overhead on the network (only one cert
| needs to be sent, not a whole chain) and lowers the
| barrier to entry for setting up a Gemini site (no need to pay a
| CA or setup a Let's Encrypt cron job, just make a cert
| and go).
|
| https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/specification.gmi
|
| https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/best-practices.gmi
| spc476 wrote:
| Okay, so when you have the "Encrypt All The Things" campaign,
| and "never NEVER implement crypto on your own," what else is
| there besides TLS?
|
| One of the triggers for Gemini was the push to add TLS to
| gopher, which isn't that easy [1].
|
| [1] http://boston.conman.org/2019/03/31.1
| meltedcapacitor wrote:
| ssh server.org cat /index.gmi
|
| not sure if that's much simpler though.
| RunSet wrote:
| "never NEVER implement crypto on your own"
|
| I understand that the admonition "never roll your own crypto"
| (as in develop your own encryption algorithm) is distinct
| from "never implement crypto on your own" (as in implement an
| existing encryption algorithm), although it is commonly
| misread as the latter.
|
| The phrase "never roll your own crypto" was originally used
| in the context of algorithms.
|
| http://web.archive.org/web/20030629085904/http://www-106.ibm.
| ..
|
| Hopefully given the description / source code of "a
| published, well-used, tried-and-tested algorithm", most
| programmers could implement it in a language with which they
| are familiar.
| spc476 wrote:
| I think it even applies to "never implement crypto on your
| own"---are you _sure_ you 've taken into account side-
| channel attacks? Timing attacks? Random number generation
| (if it's required)? Cleaning memory after use? That
| memset() isn't optimized out? There's a lot to get right
| ...
|
| Edit: a few more examples.
| [deleted]
| XMPPwocky wrote:
| Two things- one, as a sibling comment's mentioned, it
| absolutely includes implementation of cryptographic
| primitives too. There are quite a few subtle bugs (mostly,
| but not entirely, side-channels) that end up being utterly
| catastrophic.
|
| Second - even using somebody else's (high-quality, trusted)
| implementation of (high-quality, trusted) primitives very
| much isn't enough to build a secure system that uses
| cryptography. The obvious example here is everybody and
| their dog going off to implement AES or something, not
| using a MAC ("we just care about secrecy, not integrity")
| or using a MAC wrong (e.g. MAC-then-encrypt), and then
| dying horribly to a trivial padding oracle.
|
| Or, trying to build a secure transport protocol (i.e. a
| TLS-like API, where you just get "a secure socket" after
| doing some dance with certificates/keypairs)... you just
| encrypt (and MAC, this time) all the data before you send
| it out, and decrypt (and verify!) all data that comes in.
| But... wait, our API can't really handle that easily - we
| have to write the data out to the network in chunks. So,
| hm, encrypt and MAC each chunk? Oh, then chunks can be
| rearranged in transit, so we'll put a counter in there.
| What if the counter wraps around? Do you abort, or do you
| just reuse old counter values? Do you get a different
| session key for the same (client, server) pair- if not, is
| that an issue? Suppose you're using an AEAD mode, like GCM-
| how do you manage nonces? (If you reuse a nonce once in
| GCM, you often leak your authentication keys(!))
|
| Hm, all of that sounds like ... a lot. So maybe we'll just
| sign+encrypt requests (and include our public key inside),
| and have the server sign+encrypt responses (to the public
| key we sent). Hm, but we need to tie responses to requests,
| though. So we'll need to put a hash of the request in the
| response. Ah, hmm, length extension attacks, right. Maybe
| GCM will save us? Hm, not sure... What if somebody wants to
| replay old content to us (send us an older version of a
| page)? Can they do that? Right, need to either include some
| "challenge"/nonce in requests, or at least make sure
| session keys are unique per-request. What about possible
| reflection attacks - if we send the server _its own public
| key_ as our public key, does that cause any weirdness? Oh,
| what _is_ a public key, anyways? If (God forbid) you 're
| using RSA, does that include both the exponent and the
| modulus, or just the modulus? If you do a key exchange
| (e.g. for forward secrecy), who picks the parameters- are
| they just fixed?
|
| Cryptography is the sort of thing that almost actively
| resists abstraction, and it's really tricky in a way that's
| hard to appreciate. It's a world where you find a claw
| hammer and use it to remove a nail from your floor- maybe
| even looking on CarpentryOverflow first to make sure a claw
| hammer can be used to remove nails from floors- and it
| works fine, so you then go to remove a nail from your wall
| and discover that this makes the hammer burst into flames
| because, yes, most people think "claw hammers can pull
| nails out of stuff" and that's usually true but the
| unstated assumption there is that you're holding the hammer
| with your _right_ hand and you 're actually _left-handed_
| and it 's a Tuesday in the southern hemisphere so you
| actually should have used a completely different tool or
| used a higher-level misuse-resistant nail-pulling API which
| does _almost_ exactly what you want, but that 's what you
| thought the hammer did so...
| Jtsummers wrote:
| My understanding of the issue as it relates to Gemini is that
| the Gemini community is:
|
| 1. Largely using self-signed certificates on the servers.
| That gets you into the protocol, but doesn't really help with
| trust.
|
| 2. Using "trust on first use" (TOFU) in the clients, which
| doesn't scale. The clients have to know whether a particular
| cert is valid or not, and that means the user needs to
| manually verify or some trusted data source has to be
| distributed to clients. Manual verification turns into "yeah,
| yeah, just let me read the page" after a while. And a trusted
| data source is, well, hard to keep maintained, and even
| harder if it wasn't in the model from the start.
|
| So TLS gets Gemini security, of a sort, but the way it's
| being used makes it less effective than it should be.
| tedunangst wrote:
| The whole point of TOFU is the user doesn't manually
| verify.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| That's not really true, though. Like with SSH, the first
| time you receive a certificate for a server you are
| prompted to either trust it or not. If you choose to
| trust it then from that point on it remains trusted
| unless explicitly removed from the set of known hosts. Of
| course, the client could just take the option away from
| the user and automatically trust every host the first
| time. But then there's even less point in having TLS
| here.
|
| Even Signal's TOFU method offers a way for users to
| manually verify that the keys of the people they're
| communicating with, even though it permits communication
| from the start _without_ verification.
| spc476 wrote:
| The push for TOFU really only began about a year after the
| protocol was first designed, as it was deemed "too
| difficult" to obtain a real certificate, even from Let's
| Encrypt.
|
| On the other hand, those that want something SSH-like for
| the web have something to point to as an example, as well
| as those that don't think SSH-like for the web is a good
| idea as an example.
| nine_k wrote:
| TLS gives you protection against casual eavesdropping or
| tampering.
|
| Of course, self-signed certs + TOFU theoretically allow a
| third party to insert itself as a MITM at the first
| connection. This needs a lot of tracking and preparation
| beforehand; no adversary of this caliber is going to be
| interested in Gemini content.
| s5806533 wrote:
| > I see, Gemini is not to make the life of content creators
| easier, but the life of the server and client implementers.
|
| As far as I understand, the distinction (content creator on the
| one hand, server and client implementers on the other) goes
| against the Gemini philosophy. The idea is rather that it
| should be reasonably easy to be both.
| koeng wrote:
| I have a lot of fun with Gemini! Since I couldn't find a good
| static gmi -> html converter that I liked for my website, I built
| my own. It works great and is pretty simple! This is one thing
| that people miss out on - I can actually build things on top of
| gemini / gemtext because it is so simple.
| jl6 wrote:
| The most important words in the Gemini FAQ: _a clearly demarcated
| space_.
|
| Regardless of the protocol's technical merits and demerits,
| that's what generates a lot of the value.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-26 23:00 UTC)