I thoroughly enjoyed this Fosdem talk on "why are there 16 colors" by John Hall. Nice blast from the past.
My first contact ever with home made software was a friend whose cousin had made some bat files wrapping arj to pack and unpack things across several floppies. It was a finicky bat script that you had to apply in just the right order. If bat files count as programming♥
Then later on my mom learned to hack autoexec and basic stuff it was awesome♥♥
@Sandra god I miss DOS. I loved the config.sys/autoexec stuff added in MS DOS 5 or 6. So you could choose between emm386 for games, or your mouse and CDROM driver or whatever. Fun times. Did you ever have the PC mags that had you type in .com files in Debug. Little utils that would play a sound, or pause for keystrokes, etc. Life was simple then. But good. :)
@Sandra While Gemini does introduce yet another spec for web-like thingies, I really do appreciate that they've acknowledged that specs tend to explode, and they have intentionally closed (or are closing) the protocol to try and head that off.
But yes. If we look at what Gemini does to the Internet as a whole, it certainly doesn't make it simpler. :)
@Sandra The reckless scope argument is specifically re: the W3C web specifications. It's undeniable that those specifications have gone bonkers and the result is impossible to implement.
It's a cautionary tale, perhaps?
I like @protonmail a fair bit, but the mobile app experience isn't fantastic. I really want to just use native apps. Since I can't run bridge on my mobile device... Anybody have an experience misusing the Bridge software to allow connections from other devices (such as my phone)? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be comfortable exposing the Bridge IMAP and SMTP ports to the Internet directly, but perhaps through a VPN?
@Sandra I like your brutally strict validator thought. I suspect that, in practice, the features we don't want from the web would keep creeping back in. Maybe not.
And 100% on the dirty secret. That is part of the appeal of Gemini for me. Something new to mess with ;)
I think we agree on almost everything here. I'm just failing to understand how it's reasonable to criticize (I'm lacking for the right word here. You are quite supportive.) Gemini because it involves new protocols and tooling, rather than replacing something that came before and simplifying the landscape. I don't see how that could be possible.
@Sandra I totally get you that this complicates the landscape and increases the number of tools and new things. I guess I just don't see how it could be otherwise.
- The web is too complicated and awful in many ways.
- The web has so much momentum, that it seems infeasible to ever deprecate the things that make it awful.
- Gemini is a new thing that gives an option for those of us disenchanted with the modern web, and its tooling.
- Being new, it will necessarily involve work to adopt.
@Sandra That is a classic XKCD. I don't think it applies here. Gemini isn't an attempt to consolidate a bunch of different specifications into a single uber-spec. It's not trying to fix the web, nor replace it. It's intentionally something new.
That does, as you say, come with some pain of adoption (learning, servers, browsers, etc.), but it also comes with a fresh start.
Saying that "it doesn't make the web a whole lot easier" isn't fair. It explicitly isn't trying to do that. #gemini
This excellent post (cough... rant... cough...) is why I'm so excited about the Gemini project. It's a fresh state. It's got a well defined scope. It's fun. It's simple. It's privacy forward. Yay!
code. crypto. privacy. security.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!