Article in The Register about Gemini with lots of links
https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/27/gemini_protocol/

> Toaster-friendly alternative web protocol Gemini attracts criticism
for becoming exclusive clique
> While creators were stripping away annoying styling, users started to
make Geminispace a bunker, says engineer
> Liam Proven in Prague Thu 27 Jan 2022 // 14:50 UTC

One commentator suggests: Please make a Gemini version of El Reg

The German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung (taz.de) actually offers
their articles via Gopher and Gemini. I think it's well done with links
to article lists by authors, tags, etc. at the bottom of each article.

David <david@arch.invalid> writes:

> Article in The Register about Gemini with lots of links
> https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/27/gemini_protocol/
>
>> Toaster-friendly alternative web protocol Gemini attracts criticism
> for becoming exclusive clique
>> While creators were stripping away annoying styling, users started
> to make Geminispace a bunker, says engineer
>> Liam Proven in Prague Thu 27 Jan 2022 // 14:50 UTC
>
> One commentator suggests: Please make a Gemini version of El Reg
>
> The German daily newspaper Die Tageszeitung (taz.de) actually offers
> their articles via Gopher and Gemini. I think it's well done with
> links to article lists by authors, tags, etc. at the bottom of each
> article.
>

I feel a bit odd about this article. To me it seemed that the author is
dancing around saying that ``... Well, there is nothing wrong with
gemini...'' and then tangents on to say that ``the web is already
decentralized''. And that "there are also decentralized services like
activitypub" then concludes that ``what we need more is minimal web
pages''.

What happened to gemini? Well, sidetracked and used as a
conversation starter about how we should simplify the web. Even old man
gopher got a mention by the end with a couple of links to a tool to view
gopher pages and a gopher site to match it.

Also what's with this fella:

> A post this week gained a lot of traction on Hackernews forums, when a
> software engineer calling themselves "マリウス" – that's "Marius" to
> gaijin – called it "solutionism at its worst". They argued in a blogpost
> that Gemini is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist and encourages
> a bunker effect, excluding people who use ordinary web browsers, perhaps
> due to accessibility issues.

I'd argue that gemini is an answer to a problem that does exist. And
frankly, I don't think it was ever an issue for geminauts whether people
would or would not be excluded from gemini. It exists by itself as an
independent means of obtaining information. For that alone, it is really
great.

---

I took the liberty to skim this fella's blog here:

https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/gemini-is-solutionism-at-its-worst/

It seemed to me that he is a developer of something called
Superhighway84 which seemed to be a USENET clone from I read about it.
On that, I find it funny that he is talking about Gemini being ``an
answer to a problem that doesn't exist'' when he himself have created
``an answer to a problem that doesn't exist'' with his Superhighway84.

Either way, it's a lengthy blogpost for anyone who is interested in
reading what he has to say. The general idea that I took from it is we
shouldn't really mess with experimental protocols because we already
have ones that ``work'' and that we should be as inclusive as possible
to everyone (for some reason X that he didn't elaborate on).

I really need my morning cup of coffee.

Cheers everyone!

--
Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
--
gemini://rtr.kalayaan.xyz

On 30/01/2022 01:22, rtr wrote:
> David writes:
>
>> Article in The Register about Gemini with lots of links
>> https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/27/gemini_protocol/
>
> Also what's with this fella:
>
>> A post this week gained a lot of traction on Hackernews forums, when a
>> software engineer calling themselves "マリウス" – that's "Marius" to
>> gaijin – called it "solutionism at its worst". They argued in a blogpost
>> that Gemini is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist and encourages
>> a bunker effect, excluding people who use ordinary web browsers, perhaps
>> due to accessibility issues.
>
> I'd argue that gemini is an answer to a problem that does exist. And
> frankly, I don't think it was ever an issue for geminauts whether people
> would or would not be excluded from gemini. It exists by itself as an
> independent means of obtaining information. For that alone, it is really
> great.

Indeed! Suppose Gemini built on HTTP(S) instead of the current TOFU
approach, and used AsciiDoc, MarkDown or whatever as a default text
format ...
- Would http(s):plain/markdown have a catchy name, say Mercury?
- Would such beautiful clients exist like Amfora and Lagrange?
- Would there be concerns about privacy that do not exist with Gemini?
- Would there be a tangible community around it, a Wikipedia page?
This newsgroup?
I doubt it. Or is it just luck, that Gemini became quite popular?
Maybe it's as simple as that: a blog post by an influential hacker once
got enough clicks on Hackernews. At least that's how I got to know of
Gemini, if I remember correctly.

> I took the liberty to skim this fella's blog here:
>
> https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/gemini-is-solutionism-at-its-worst/
>
> It seemed to me that he is a developer of something called
> Superhighway84 which seemed to be a USENET clone from I read about it.
> On that, I find it funny that he is talking about Gemini being ``an
> answer to a problem that doesn't exist'' when he himself have created
> ``an answer to a problem that doesn't exist'' with his Superhighway84.

Superhighway84 seems similar to Usenet regarding the organisation of
messages with groups, posts and threads, but data transfer is different:
- The data of the messages is kept locally in a database (OrbitDB).
- Changes to the database are propagated to and from connected peers.
- Peers are connect via the IPFS protocol.
- There is no central server (or few servers as in Usenet?).
- When installing IPFS on your machine, the software comes with a set of
pre-configured peer addresses to connect to initially (bootstrap).

So there's no single point of failure, which is impressive in itself.
Are there other notable uses of IPFS, would sci-hub be one (or is it)?

> Either way, it's a lengthy blogpost for anyone who is interested in
> reading what he has to say. The general idea that I took from it is we
> shouldn't really mess with experimental protocols because we already
> have ones that ``work'' and that we should be as inclusive as possible
> to everyone (for some reason X that he didn't elaborate on).

It is definitely an interesting read. Cheers!

I saw that article the other day! As far as I know they are the most
famous paper to write about Gemini. I'm hoping for an article in the New
York Times.

--
gemini://kwiecien.us/

It's a strange article in that the headline and subheading are far more
critical than most of the article. I assumed I was about to read another
rant against Gemini. But there is basically one paragraph that mentions
some criticism and the rest of the article is neutral or positive.

David <david@arch.invalid> wrote:
> Indeed! Suppose Gemini built on HTTP(S) instead of the current TOFU
> approach, and used AsciiDoc, MarkDown or whatever as a default text
> format ...
> - Would http(s):plain/markdown have a catchy name, say Mercury?
> - Would such beautiful clients exist like Amfora and Lagrange?
> - Would there be concerns about privacy that do not exist with Gemini?
> - Would there be a tangible community around it, a Wikipedia page?
> This newsgroup?

I suppose it is possible. It does not need its own URI scheme; the existing
"http" and "https" schemes will work. It can still be given its own name,
instead of "WWW", but does not need its own URI scheme.

However, the existing Gemini is good enough, instead of adding many things
that are not needed. Better is to just design better protocols/formats
but other ways can be work, too.

Near the end of article <1643573802.bystand@zzo38computer.org>, I mentioned
a way in which t could be implemented without too much difficulty even in
future versions of existing web browsers (hopefully), but would also be
possible to make the simpler client implementing only a subset of the
features and still have better user customization, etc; in this way, the
protocol becomes interoperable.

Interoperable protocol is not the only way to do, but it is one way. I
still think that the separate protocol/format (like Gemini is, although
there are some things I would have done a bit differently) would be better,
but that will not always be compatible.

(Of course there are still many problems with the commonly used protocols
and formats, but it is possible to make data/services available with multiple
protocols and/or file formats, if wanted, too, just as well as programs can
be available for multiple kind of computers, etc.)

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

David <david@arch.invalid> writes:

> On 30/01/2022 01:22, rtr wrote:
>> David writes:
>>
>>> Article in The Register about Gemini with lots of links
>>> https://www.theregister.com/2022/01/27/gemini_protocol/
>> Also what's with this fella:
>>
>>> A post this week gained a lot of traction on Hackernews forums, when a
>>> software engineer calling themselves "マリウス" – that's "Marius" to
>>> gaijin – called it "solutionism at its worst". They argued in a blogpost
>>> that Gemini is an answer to a problem that doesn't exist and encourages
>>> a bunker effect, excluding people who use ordinary web browsers, perhaps
>>> due to accessibility issues.
>> I'd argue that gemini is an answer to a problem that does exist. And
>> frankly, I don't think it was ever an issue for geminauts whether people
>> would or would not be excluded from gemini. It exists by itself as an
>> independent means of obtaining information. For that alone, it is really
>> great.
>
> Indeed! Suppose Gemini built on HTTP(S) instead of the current TOFU
> approach, and used AsciiDoc, MarkDown or whatever as a default text
> format ...
> - Would http(s):plain/markdown have a catchy name, say Mercury?
> - Would such beautiful clients exist like Amfora and Lagrange?
> - Would there be concerns about privacy that do not exist with Gemini?
> - Would there be a tangible community around it, a Wikipedia page?
> This newsgroup?
> I doubt it. Or is it just luck, that Gemini became quite popular?
> Maybe it's as simple as that: a blog post by an influential hacker
> once got enough clicks on Hackernews. At least that's how I got to
> know of Gemini, if I remember correctly.
>

Honestly, I don't think it's just luck. I think the reason why gemini
became ``popular'' is because it tried to do something different rather
than expand on HTTP(S) for the nth time. I think this is the reason why
the author's arguments missed the entire point of gemini. It was never
about ``giving access to everyone'' it's about giving them a choice.

The reason why I'm using gemini is because it's convenient for me to
keep a blog in gemini than in a normal LAMP/LEMP stack. My VPS just has
a gemini directory that I rsync from my local machine. The thought of
having my blog being accessible to everyone and their grandma never
crossed in me. If I wanted that I would have hosted my blog in HTTP
instead of gemini.

>> I took the liberty to skim this fella's blog here:
>> https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/gemini-is-solutionism-at-its-worst/
>> It seemed to me that he is a developer of something called
>> Superhighway84 which seemed to be a USENET clone from I read about it.
>> On that, I find it funny that he is talking about Gemini being ``an
>> answer to a problem that doesn't exist'' when he himself have created
>> ``an answer to a problem that doesn't exist'' with his Superhighway84.
>
> Superhighway84 seems similar to Usenet regarding the organisation of
> messages with groups, posts and threads, but data transfer is
> different:
> - The data of the messages is kept locally in a database (OrbitDB).
> - Changes to the database are propagated to and from connected peers.
> - Peers are connect via the IPFS protocol.
> - There is no central server (or few servers as in Usenet?).
> - When installing IPFS on your machine, the software comes with a set
> of pre-configured peer addresses to connect to initially
> (bootstrap).
>
> So there's no single point of failure, which is impressive in itself.
> Are there other notable uses of IPFS, would sci-hub be one (or is it)?
>

I think the idea underneath is the same. It's just that its using
IPFS instead of NNTP. USENET is also decentralized, it's just that most
of us don't bother to install INN and just connect to a USENET
provider. Also, IPFS is a weird hodgepodge protocol.

Funnily enough, I was reading a lot about IPFS a few days ago because I
thought it's a neat protocol with all the fancy modern web crap that
they've pulled in their website. But then I came across this guy's blog:

https://fiatjaf.com/d5031e5b.html

Which promptly killed all of my enthusiasm with IPFS. It seems like a
half-baked protocol that sounds neat in theory but is quite bad in
practice. I don't want my files having anything to do with something
like that.

--
Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
--
gemini://rtr.kalayaan.xyz

bunburya <bunburya@tilde.club> writes:

> It's a strange article in that the headline and subheading are far
> more critical than most of the article. I assumed I was about to read
> another rant against Gemini. But there is basically one paragraph that
> mentions some criticism and the rest of the article is neutral or
> positive.
>

I've never really thought about this but are there a lot of people being
all negative nancy about gemini?

--
Give them an inch and they will take a mile.
--
gemini://rtr.kalayaan.xyz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

rtr wrote:
> [...]
> Funnily enough, I was reading a lot about IPFS a few days ago because I
> thought it's a neat protocol with all the fancy modern web crap that
> they've pulled in their website. But then I came across this guy's blog:
>
> https://fiatjaf.com/d5031e5b.html
>
> Which promptly killed all of my enthusiasm with IPFS. It seems like a
> half-baked protocol that sounds neat in theory but is quite bad in
> practice. I don't want my files having anything to do with something
> like that.

Heh, I get that feeling from a fair number of "modern" things. It's
almost as if all the new frameworks and such that make programming
easier also make it easier to just make a horrible mess.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=M0fM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O|

On 30/01/2022 23:43, rtr wrote:
> I've never really thought about this but are there a lot of people being
> all negative nancy about gemini?

Gemini pops up fairly regularly on Hackernews these days, and overall I
would say there is a roughly even split between positive and negative
comments. Criticisms tend to suggest that Gemini is unnecessary, as we
should just use the web but with better practices, and that gemtext is
too simplistic (eg, lack of inline links). In other words, it is hard to
dislodge the myth that Gemini is trying to replace the web.

On 2022-01-31, Dan Purgert wrote:
>
> rtr wrote:
>> [...]
>> Funnily enough, I was reading a lot about IPFS a few days ago because I
>> thought it's a neat protocol with all the fancy modern web crap that
>> they've pulled in their website. But then I came across this guy's blog:
>>
>> https://fiatjaf.com/d5031e5b.html
>>
>> Which promptly killed all of my enthusiasm with IPFS. It seems like a
>> half-baked protocol that sounds neat in theory but is quite bad in
>> practice. I don't want my files having anything to do with something
>> like that.
>
> Heh, I get that feeling from a fair number of "modern" things. It's
> almost as if all the new frameworks and such that make programming
> easier also make it easier to just make a horrible mess.

Terraform, Packer, Ansible, etc. These just happen to be the /modern/
things I'm using at work lately. They are all useful but all seem to be
not quite as good as they could be.

I haven't set up a gemini capsule of my own yet, but reading this group
I'm getting more interesting in doing so. Modern is not bad in and of
itself, but neither is old bad just because it's old.

--
() www.asciiribbon.org | Jeremy Brubaker
/\ - against html mail | јЬruЬаkе@оrіоnаrtѕ.іо / neonrex on IRC

You were s'posed to laugh!

bunburya <bunburya@tilde.club> writes:

> In other words, it is hard to dislodge the myth that Gemini is trying
> to replace the web.

I find that one problem people (especially on "Hacker" "News") have in
understanding Gemini is that they don't have any experience of Gopher,
only of the WWW. A lot of things about Gemini make more sense when you
consider them as things addressing the pain points in Gopher, rather
than problems with the WWW.

--
Jason McBrayer | “Strange is the night where black stars rise,
jmcbray@carcosa.net | and strange moons circle through the skies,
| but stranger still is lost Carcosa.”
| ― Robert W. Chambers,The King in Yellow

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Jeremy Brubaker wrote:
> On 2022-01-31, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>
>> rtr wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Funnily enough, I was reading a lot about IPFS a few days ago because I
>>> thought it's a neat protocol with all the fancy modern web crap that
>>> they've pulled in their website. But then I came across this guy's blog:
>>>
>>> https://fiatjaf.com/d5031e5b.html
>>>
>>> Which promptly killed all of my enthusiasm with IPFS. It seems like a
>>> half-baked protocol that sounds neat in theory but is quite bad in
>>> practice. I don't want my files having anything to do with something
>>> like that.
>>
>> Heh, I get that feeling from a fair number of "modern" things. It's
>> almost as if all the new frameworks and such that make programming
>> easier also make it easier to just make a horrible mess.
>
> Terraform, Packer, Ansible, etc. These just happen to be the /modern/
> things I'm using at work lately. They are all useful but all seem to be
> not quite as good as they could be.
>
> I haven't set up a gemini capsule of my own yet, but reading this group
> I'm getting more interesting in doing so. Modern is not bad in and of
> itself, but neither is old bad just because it's old.
>

I meant the general trend of implementations (regardless of language)
that are multiple layers of abstraction, resulting in any number of
half-baked interdependencies that break everything once some
"lower-level" package that everyone depends on goes away for whatever
reason.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=NsBf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O|

On 1/30/2022 6:53 AM, bunburya wrote:
>
> It's a strange article in that the headline and subheading are far more
> critical than most of the article.

That's clickbait news articles for ya, lol. All News outlets do this
basically all of the time. They prioritize the bad or criticisms over
the good things because it's what catches people's attention and maybe
other reasons. In fact, I believe I read that there was a study done
that shows the more negative news you see, the more likely you are to
react negatively and write negative posts on social media, and the more
positive news you see, the more positive posts you write.

On 2022-01-31, Jason McBrayer <jmcbray@carcosa.net> wrote:
> I find that one problem people (especially on "Hacker" "News") have in
> understanding Gemini is that they don't have any experience of Gopher,
> only of the WWW. A lot of things about Gemini make more sense when you
> consider them as things addressing the pain points in Gopher, rather
> than problems with the WWW.

I used to think that, but now I think it's mostly to help people who
use TUIs and text have an exclusive club for themselves. Bonus points
if you hate accessibility by calling it useless since you have no
accessibility issues yourself.

> (especially on "Hacker" "News")

The web is pretty good at Gemini evangelism though. Places that Real
Hackers (TM) like to shit on are full of people telling me that
they're on Gemini.

Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:

> rtr wrote:
>> [...]
>> Funnily enough, I was reading a lot about IPFS a few days ago because I
>> thought it's a neat protocol with all the fancy modern web crap that
>> they've pulled in their website. But then I came across this guy's blog:
>>
>> https://fiatjaf.com/d5031e5b.html
>>
>> Which promptly killed all of my enthusiasm with IPFS. It seems like a
>> half-baked protocol that sounds neat in theory but is quite bad in
>> practice. I don't want my files having anything to do with something
>> like that.
>
> Heh, I get that feeling from a fair number of "modern" things. It's
> almost as if all the new frameworks and such that make programming
> easier also make it easier to just make a horrible mess.

They've created their own complex way of making things simple. Is what I
gathered from most ``modern'' tech. It's just crap over crap over crap
and crap. I'm sure there are good technical reasons as to why they were
developed but at some you have to ask yourself: ``Maybe it's time to
just create a new thing for this instead of bolting in it into the
existing framework.''

--
Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
--
{gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz

Jeremy Brubaker <jbrubake.362@orionarts.invalid> writes:

> On 2022-01-31, Dan Purgert wrote:
>>
>> rtr wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Funnily enough, I was reading a lot about IPFS a few days ago because I
>>> thought it's a neat protocol with all the fancy modern web crap that
>>> they've pulled in their website. But then I came across this guy's blog:
>>>
>>> https://fiatjaf.com/d5031e5b.html
>>>
>>> Which promptly killed all of my enthusiasm with IPFS. It seems like a
>>> half-baked protocol that sounds neat in theory but is quite bad in
>>> practice. I don't want my files having anything to do with something
>>> like that.
>>
>> Heh, I get that feeling from a fair number of "modern" things. It's
>> almost as if all the new frameworks and such that make programming
>> easier also make it easier to just make a horrible mess.
>
> Terraform, Packer, Ansible, etc. These just happen to be the /modern/
> things I'm using at work lately. They are all useful but all seem to be
> not quite as good as they could be.
>
> I haven't set up a gemini capsule of my own yet, but reading this group
> I'm getting more interesting in doing so. Modern is not bad in and of
> itself, but neither is old bad just because it's old.

You definitely should. I find gemini really accessible and so much so
that my http site is just a proxy of my gemini one.

I think ``modern'' things try to focus more on the outward facilities of
things rather than the innards. It seems accessible, yes, but don't ever
dare look behind the curtain. Because behind that curtain, is layers of
pain that you don't want to experience.

--
Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
--
{gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

rtr wrote:
> Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> writes:
>
>> rtr wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Funnily enough, I was reading a lot about IPFS a few days ago because I
>>> thought it's a neat protocol with all the fancy modern web crap that
>>> they've pulled in their website. But then I came across this guy's blog:
>>>
>>> https://fiatjaf.com/d5031e5b.html
>>>
>>> Which promptly killed all of my enthusiasm with IPFS. It seems like a
>>> half-baked protocol that sounds neat in theory but is quite bad in
>>> practice. I don't want my files having anything to do with something
>>> like that.
>>
>> Heh, I get that feeling from a fair number of "modern" things. It's
>> almost as if all the new frameworks and such that make programming
>> easier also make it easier to just make a horrible mess.
>
> They've created their own complex way of making things simple. Is what I
> gathered from most ``modern'' tech. It's just crap over crap over crap
> and crap. I'm sure there are good technical reasons as to why they were
> developed but at some you have to ask yourself: ``Maybe it's time to
> just create a new thing for this instead of bolting in it into the
> existing framework.''

Much better way of putting it than I was able to :).

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=dwyt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
|_|O|_| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|_|_|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1 E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860
|O|O|O|

bunburya <bunburya@tilde.club> writes:

> On 30/01/2022 23:43, rtr wrote:
>> I've never really thought about this but are there a lot of people being
>> all negative nancy about gemini?
>
> Gemini pops up fairly regularly on Hackernews these days, and overall
> I would say there is a roughly even split between positive and
> negative comments. Criticisms tend to suggest that Gemini is
> unnecessary, as we should just use the web but with better practices,
> and that gemtext is too simplistic (eg, lack of inline links). In
> other words, it is hard to dislodge the myth that Gemini is trying to
> replace the web.
>

I really don't understand the ``well the web can do it so we should
just all use the web.'' If you've read the FAQ for gemini they're
basically saying that they're trying to create a gopher+ of sorts
without going too much into http.

Also. No amount of effort in the web can replicate the consistent
simplicity of {gemini,gopher}. The temptation to ``just add one
more feature'' is too strong because the web allows it. There are
http sites that I've visited that supposedly tout simplicity but
have all fancy crap over it.

Just give me my plain text!

Cheers

--
Ang kalayaan ay dili gihatag, ini'y giabot.
--
{gemini,gopher}://kalayaan.xyz

On 2022-01-30, rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> wrote:

> I'd argue that gemini is an answer to a problem that does exist. And
> frankly, I don't think it was ever an issue for geminauts whether people
> would or would not be excluded from gemini. It exists by itself as an
> independent means of obtaining information. For that alone, it is really
> great.

Agreed.

But I wound up a little disappointed that while great for
"obtaining", the participants it attracted are far and away
more often "post... wait quite a while... post again", which
feels rather:

$ echo "hey this is my latest installment" >/dev/null

to me.

The absence of responding to each other - e.g. via backward
link plus quote - and a USENET mention in some gemlog had me
pondering a return to USENET, where cross-responding seems
to integral (or did so in the distant past, at least...).

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

On 18/12/2023 19:55, oldernow wrote:
> On 2022-01-30, rtr <rtr@haraya.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'd argue that gemini is an answer to a problem that does exist. And
>> frankly, I don't think it was ever an issue for geminauts whether people
>> would or would not be excluded from gemini. It exists by itself as an
>> independent means of obtaining information. For that alone, it is really
>> great.
>
> Agreed.
>
> But I wound up a little disappointed that while great for
> "obtaining", the participants it attracted are far and away
> more often "post... wait quite a while... post again", which
> feels rather:
>
> $ echo "hey this is my latest installment" >/dev/null
>
> to me.
>
> The absence of responding to each other - e.g. via backward
> link plus quote - and a USENET mention in some gemlog had me
> pondering a return to USENET, where cross-responding seems
> to integral (or did so in the distant past, at least...).
>

A friend on Mastodon just alerted me to this usenet group after I posted
about usenet on my gemlog. I've been pondering the same.

I love Gemini and the 'small internet' movement in general, but we've
had this notion of call-and-response since the early 1980s when usenet
hit the scene and I'd love to find a way to marry the two.

Or - perhaps - this is all just nostalgia manifesting itself.

Either way, I think it's great that a growing number of people miss the
web as it was and are working on (or resurrecting) alternatives. Since
we can't actually set fire to the corporates who took the web from us...
building new spaces and repurposing old ones feels like a great way to
fight back.

Kestral Gaian wrote:

> A friend on Mastodon just alerted me to this usenet group after I posted
> about usenet on my gemlog.

I'm glad you found it. ;-)

--
Denez Van Dyck
Capsule : gemini://gemini.oxydable.fr
Web Proxy : https://gemini.oxydable.fr
Mastodon : https://mamot.fr/@dvd

On 2023-12-22, Kestral Gaian <kes@kesgai.com> wrote:

> I love Gemini and the 'small internet' movement in general, but we've
> had this notion of call-and-response since the early 1980s when usenet
> hit the scene and I'd love to find a way to marry the two.

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.

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

oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> writes:

> On 2023-12-22, Kestral Gaian <kes@kesgai.com> wrote:
>
>> I love Gemini and the 'small internet' movement in general, but we've
>> had this notion of call-and-response since the early 1980s when usenet
>> hit the scene and I'd love to find a way to marry the two.
>
> 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.

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

john

On Tue, 09 Jan 2024 16:27:12 +0000
John <john@building-m.simplistic-anti-spam-measure.net> wrote:

<snip>

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

Meanwhile in September Land: Usenet threads are mostly about Usenet.

I'm just say'n. Gotta start somewhere ...

--
SyberShock | NNTP | Usenet | Forum | https://sybershock.com
Fediverse | https://neon.nightbulb.net/firefly
NightBulb | Flip the night switch. | https://nightbulb.net
Newsgroup | alt.cypher | alt.sources.crypto | alt.lite.bulb