From: gopher-bounce@complete.org
       Date: Wed Apr 11 21:06:16 2007
       Subject: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
       
       Well, yes, I see your point and perhaps I am only thinking of "me"
       being somewhat selfish and prefering to have external handlers, I dont like the kitchen sink approach but do understand that it's not for everyone.
       I am getting frustrated though, this has been like this too long with moz, first they will fix it then not on and on...
       I just don't use it anymore.
       C
       
       
       n Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
       Cameron Kaiser <spectre@floodgap.com> wrote:
       
       > > As for having the search engines stick to port 70.
       > > First I disagree, thats not a gopher problem its a moz problem .
       > 
       > I agree with this also. :2347 was always the standard Veronica port. In fact,
       > it's non-standard of *me* to run V-2 on the regular port and I've even been
       > mulling over putting a mirror onto port 2347.
       > 
       > > And that brings me back to... why? because Moz/Firefox is broken?
       > > I understand you feel most people will be using Firefox. I also feel it
       > > should be fixed, or drop gopher from it's core and have the option to open
       > > lynx when a gopher:// address is used. Such as gopher has an option for a
       > > web page. below is what shows up when going to an html page from gopher:
       > 
       > I think this was reasonable only in that specific situation, however. The
       > gopher clients were never intended as multi-protocol systems, and it made
       > good sense to spawn external handlers.
       > 
       > However, this is no longer the case as most web browsers handle the kitchen
       > sink (as in "everything but the"). You still have browsers minimally handling
       > FTP as a secondary protocol, for example, and people now expect a unified
       > Swiss-Army knife solution. There are also lots of Windows users who don't
       > have a secondary client.
       > 
       > Besides, the argument that it's broken and should be fixed or removed,
       > frankly, applies just as well to HTML. Mozilla-core is less broken than
       > Internet Explorer, but it still has its deficiencies :)
       > 
       > If we lose Mozilla-core support for gopher, this will be a serious blow to
       > the community. I certainly intend to maintain the HTTP<->Gopher proxy, which
       > is very popular, but it robs casual users of an easy path to browse Gopher if
       > support were eroded further by forcing them to do more to get it.
       > 
       > -- 
       > --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
       >   Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@floodgap.com
       > -- It's tradition, that makes it okay. -- Weird Al, "Weasel Stomping Day" -----
       > 
       > 
       > 
       
       
       -- 
       Join FSF as an Associate Member at:
       <URL:http://member.fsf.org/join?referrer=3014>
       Thread start
 (DIR) [gopher]  Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
       Thread start
 (DIR) [gopher]  Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
 (DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
 (DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
 (DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
 (DIR) Followup: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one