oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> wrote:
> My noodling around Gemini spaces has left me with the
> impression that those most attracted to Gemini are least
> attracted to interaction. To me it feels like a response to
> the corporate web and/or "social networks" that went too far,
> baby out with the bathwater, etc.

I do not believe that it "went too far", but I think that the
response should consider:

* You do not need to use one protocol for everything, e.g. for
communications you can have IRC, NNTP, SMTP, etc.

* For writing text documents, Gemini format will do, although I
still think that there are some problems (which is why I made up
my own, but which might have a different set of advantages and
disadvantages; such a thing is inevitable anyways). It is common
to see some designs are too simple and all of the others are too
complicated. At least, Gemini is almost good, in these ways.

* It is also possible that some people do not have much to say,
but some people will have more to say later. And, some people
might have written something but yyou have not found it yet.

* For many types of games, something such as Telnet might do.
Although sometimes it is seen on Gemini, I think that is
inappropriate. However, Telnet does not have a URL with a path
and does not have client certificates, which means that one
possibility would be to use the I subprotocol of Scorpion.

* Different people are clearly having different opinions of
these things, including my own opinions (I mentioned above).

--
Don't laugh at the moon when it is day time in France.

On 2024-01-09, John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:

> To paraphrase a Simpsons joke, Gemini sites mostly say "I have a Gemini
> site".

Which I suppose says more about most Geminauts than about the
protocol and gemtext. It seems very "Wheee! I have a cute little
red balloon too! Wheee!"

--
Oldernow
gemlog | gemini://tilde.club/~oldernow | gemini://bbs.geminispace.org/u/oldernow
email | xyz001@nym.hush.com

oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:

> On 2024-01-09, John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
>
>> To paraphrase a Simpsons joke, Gemini sites mostly say "I have a Gemini
>> site".
>
> Which I suppose says more about most Geminauts than about the
> protocol and gemtext. It seems very "Wheee! I have a cute little
> red balloon too! Wheee!"

True, but it doesn't mean the protocol and the gemtext spec can't also
be bad.

john

On 2024-01-26, John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:

>> Which I suppose says more about most Geminauts than about the
>> protocol and gemtext. It seems very "Wheee! I have a cute little
>> red balloon too! Wheee!"
>
> True, but it doesn't mean the protocol and the gemtext spec can't also
> be bad.

:-)

I wouldn't know in a bigger bits/bytes technical sense, but will
admit the absence of inline links in gemtext made it seem rather
"rinky dink".

--
Oldernow
gemlog | gemini://tilde.club/~oldernow | gemini://bbs.geminispace.org/u/oldernow
email | xyz001@nym.hush.com

> On 2024-01-26, John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:
> > True, but it doesn't mean the protocol and the gemtext spec can't also
> > be bad.

I do think there are some problems with it, although it is better than the
complicated and messy WWW, at least. I did try to make one that is (in my
opinion) better, in many ways. (Below is the discussion of inline links.
Mine also doesn't have inline links, for the reasons I mentioned below.)

oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> wrote:
> I wouldn't know in a bigger bits/bytes technical sense, but will
> admit the absence of inline links in gemtext made it seem rather
> "rinky dink".

Although some people dislike the absence of inline links, there are some
reasons against having inline links in the text, such as:

* Inline links are not as good for being printed out on a paper. If a
link is on a line by itself, then it can easily print the URL next to it.

* Inline links are not as good for keyboard operation with numbered links.
Having links on a line by themself, makes this easier to display and to
implement. It also helps with keyboard operation if you use arrows to move
the cursor instead, since you can push up/down arrows to move cursor; or
if you have a display with the buttons on the side to select each line.

* Inline links are more complicated to implement than links on lines by
themself, for several reasons.

* Links on lines by themself might be easier to use, and simpler to display
on some systems. It might also be easier to understand.

--
Don't laugh at the moon when it is day time in France.