[HN Gopher] Poor Man's Web
___________________________________________________________________
Poor Man's Web
Author : Looky1173
Score : 105 points
Date : 2023-12-27 09:30 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (zserge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (zserge.com)
| danishbread wrote:
| The article title didn't express what this was about, but it
| seems seems to be a revival of the old, pre-WWW web, via a new
| protocol Gemini.
|
| I'm not sure why it's "poor man's" web, other than being
| minimalistic (text and images only.) I thought the phrase meant
| something less desirable to use, less capable. But this could be
| genuinely pleasant!
| troupo wrote:
| People keep trying to make Gemini happen.
|
| I will keep repeating that in its quest for simplicity Gemini
| threw the baby out of with the water.
|
| Basic styling and inline images are invaluable.
| antiframe wrote:
| I agree that basic styling and in-line images add something,
| but I like how Gemini strips so much faff out that the prose
| and links must stand strongly on their own.
|
| I've taken to writing my markdown and other documetns simiarly.
| Cory Doctorow does something similar.
|
| https://pluralistic.net/2023/12/20/em-oh-you-ess-ee/#sexytim...
|
| We don't need Gemini. We can get the feeling of the Smol Web by
| just choosing an effective subset of the features of HTML.
| PurpleRamen wrote:
| > I like how Gemini strips so much faff out that the prose
| and links must stand strongly on their own.
|
| I don't think that's working at all. Their website is so
| unapproachable bad, that it fails in selling me reasons why I
| should even care about this or read further. Letting
| something standing on its own only really works well if you
| have a small amount to deliver. Any slightly lengthy text
| will just bury you in a desert of letters.
| II2II wrote:
| > Any slightly lengthy text will just bury you in a desert
| of letters.
|
| Is this a bad thing?
|
| Books are a "desert of letters", with little to break the
| text up outside of chapters, sections, and paragraphs. If
| you broaden the scope a bit, you can added illustrations
| and photos. People have been reading books for generations.
| While many books do break that mould, many books continue
| to follow that tradition.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Books are a "desert of letters", with little to break
| the text up outside of chapters, sections, and
| paragraphs.
|
| You're forgetting pages. The fact pages physically limit
| the visual bounds of all the letters helps people read
| them. The words from page 6 aren't going to come into
| view while you're reading page 4 but scrolled down a
| little too far.
| PurpleRamen wrote:
| > Is this a bad thing?
|
| Depends on the purpose. For a Webpage, which is a
| collection of short texts, to sell you on something, it
| is bad.
|
| > Books are a "desert of letters"
|
| Depends on the book. A phone book would be a desert of
| letters, I don't think many would enjoy reading them.
| Something like a novel, would be a forest of chapters,
| full of trees with letters arranged in a meaningful way,
| leading you on a road toward a goal. But a webpage is not
| a novel, it has an informative purpose, and is full of
| little small texts of equal value.
| troupo wrote:
| Have you actually seen books? While typographic
| traditions did go down the drain in the recent decades,
| it's still hard to find a domain as varied as books.
|
| Even the most boring books often have things that Gemini
| purposefully omits: from styling to inline illustrations
| to diagrams to insets, asides, footnotes, tables of
| content, just tables, typographic marks etc. etc. etc.
| ertian wrote:
| > Any slightly lengthy text will just bury you in a desert
| of letters.
|
| So what do you make of books, then?
|
| I don't think people "keep trying to make Gemini happen" in
| the sense that you mean. They're not aiming to replace the
| web. They've got a cozy little community that likes the
| 'smol', text-based web. And while 90% of people might think
| they're crazy, there are others out there who would like it
| too if only they knew it existed. Posts like this make the
| community a few individuals larger. I think _that 's_ the
| goal.
| PurpleRamen wrote:
| > So what do you make of books, then?
|
| This webpage is not a book. It has a different purpose.
| With a book, I know what it contains, where it's leading
| to, usually they have an abstract for this.
|
| I have nothing against Gemini and the people in general,
| I'm just saying the limitation is not working well for
| every type of text. Pictures and a bit more structure
| would be useful for the boring informative texts.
| antiframe wrote:
| Webpages aren't as monocultural as books, though. There
| are webpages that have interactive 3D models (which
| physical books can't). There are webpages that are
| basically books though. Some webpages will port well to
| gemtext, some will not. The purpose isn't to replace
| HTML. The purpose is to make long-form uninterrupted text
| a first-class citizen by forcing other elements to be
| second-class citizens.
| PurpleRamen wrote:
| > Webpages aren't as monocultural as books, though.
|
| Depends on the definition of Webpage and book.
|
| > There are webpages that have interactive 3D models
| (which physical books can't).
|
| Pop-up-Books?
| troupo wrote:
| > So what do you make of books, then?
|
| Have you ... seen books? You can't compare a medium as
| varied as books to a purposefully limited and primitive
| medium of Gemini.
| lproven wrote:
| Entirely this.
|
| I feel that if there were some way of promoting a Javascript-
| free web, everything the world needs is already there in all
| modern browsers.
|
| I suspect that between HTML5, and indeed XHTML, and CSS and
| all the many modern image formats and so on, everything
| important that almost any site needs could be done using
| these tools and no JS at all.
|
| And the result could also be interpreted and rendered
| successfully by much smaller simpler browsers, along the
| lines of Netsurf and Dillo, which are 10% of the size of a
| full dynamic-content browser or less.
|
| The question is how.
|
| A contest? Make the richest website you can that uses no
| Javascript, Typescript or anything else, and win a prize as
| well as promotion?
| sircastor wrote:
| I think a contest would be antithetical to the idea being
| circled here. The early web (to me) was filled with content
| front people who put out there because they wanted to
| share. Put your page up because here's something you think
| is cool. I feel like it loses something with a contest.
| giantrobot wrote:
| I don't think a contest is needed. Just a desire to
| participate in the "Smol Web". Back in the day we had the
| "best viewed in any browser" badge indicating a page worked
| fine in IE and Navigator and probably also lynx. Personally
| I hate making web pages that _don 't_ work in Dillo or
| lynx.
| Gualdrapo wrote:
| Not sure if going back to 2008 or so pre-HTML5 will prevent
| people from injecting kilobyes and megabytes of JS libraries
| or nesting dozens of divs because reasons.
| II2II wrote:
| The problem with most of these discussions is they assume
| Gemini is a substitute for the web, when it is actually a
| substitute for Gopher.
|
| Gopher never really went away. A few enthusiasts were keeping
| it alive. Those enthusiasts realized that Gopher had a number
| of shortcomings, so Gemini was created to address those
| shortcomings. It was not created to address the shortcomings of
| the web. (At least not directly. Indirectly one could argue
| those enthusiasts kept Gopher alive due to the shortcomings of
| the web.)
|
| As for styling and inline images: in a sense, Gemini offers
| styles to a limited degree. Those styles are tied to the
| structure of the document, while the appearance is left to the
| software rendering the document. Even though inline images are
| considered a faux pas, I seem to recall Lagrange offering that
| feature. Again, we are dealing with the rendering software
| making the decision rather than the author. Since the end user
| chooses and configures the rendering software, it is the end
| user who has control (rather than the author).
| classichasclass wrote:
| I think this is true only up to a point. The sets of Gopher
| enthusiasts and Gemini enthusiasts surely overlap, but they
| are not coterminous (disclosure: I administer
| gopher.floodgap.com).
|
| From my view in Gopherspace, Gemini is a better fit for the
| Gopher+TLS thing people keep trying to do which is both
| incompatible and doesn't square with Gopher being an ultra-
| light protocol, and thus most appealing to those people who
| thought Gopher would be the "new smol web" but found it's
| more its own thing. In particular, Gopher's signature strong
| menu-document hierarchy that a lot of us Gopher nerds like
| doesn't have any true parallel in Gemini.
|
| I started gopher.floodgap.com back when it was
| gopher.ptloma.edu in the late 1990s largely as a historical
| preservation because I remembered all the cool stuff you
| could get there. Back then the Web hadn't metastasized to the
| Tetsuo blob it is today, so that obviously wouldn't have been
| the reason. I can't speak for the later adopters, but Gemini
| doesn't scratch my Gopher itches fully (see also
| https://oldvcr.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-gopher-view-of-
| gemini.... , my notes on this from 2020).
| II2II wrote:
| I didn't mean to suggest that Gopher and Gemini enthusiasts
| are one and the same. Rather, I meant to suggest that it
| was a subset of Gopher enthusiasts that decided to address
| some of the shortcomings of Gopher. At least that is the
| impression that I received while watching from the
| sidelines. It never really struck me as being a derivative
| of the web.
|
| And thank you for gopher.floodgap.com. While I had some
| exposure to Gopher in the mid-1990's, most of my exposure
| was through Floodgap (and SDF) in the early 2000's.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| My feeling is that Gemini's entire purpose is being opinionated
| and somewhat inconvenient. It purposefully threw the baby out
| because it didn't want the baby.
|
| Everything Gemini does, you can do it in HTTP. In fact, a
| subset of HTTP+HTML would be even simpler than Gemini (mostly
| because of a lack of TLS) and still compatible with all the
| modern web stack. Simplicity isn't the main goal of Gemini.
| Exclusiveness is.
| arkh wrote:
| Gemini protocol using :// again. I feel like more people should
| watch Dylan Beattle's "The Web that Never Was" presentation.
|
| > gem:my.domain.com/hello
| guestbest wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't slashes typically reserved
| for flags on Unix and back slashes on dos/windows? If that's
| the case then surely the vertices line, pipe symbol |, would be
| the most visually appropriate? Piping remote data over a
| network connection and through the local client program to
| parse seems to be the kind of thing bike shedding was intended
| for, in agreement but focusing on semantics. It just seems new
| by safe and only requires reprogramming the kernel for the
| shell semantics.
|
| # gemeni:|bike.domain.com|shed
|
| Or even better, everything is little endian to allow
| autocomplete from previous entries by the user in the shell so
| that once the user hits the domain keyword the shell history
| parser assumes the user wants to stay on the site
|
| # gemeni:|shed|bike|domain|com
|
| I'm not sure how feasible this as I've never written an
| internet or shell language
| WaitWaitWha wrote:
| > Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't slashes typically
| reserved for flags on Unix and back slashes on dos/windows?
|
| Forward slash (/) in DOS, while dash, tack, or hyphen (-) are
| used for UNIX for command line flags or parameters. The / in
| UNIX was for the path. The backslash (\\) is for DOS paths.
| (Caveat: I started with UNIX in the mid-80s.)
| guestbest wrote:
| Ah, thanks.
| chatmasta wrote:
| Maybe I'm mis-reading the URI spec [0], but it seems that // is
| required to separate the scheme from the "authority" part when
| it's present (as it is for my.domain.com).
|
| [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-3.2
| AlbertoGP wrote:
| > _I feel like more people should watch Dylan Beattle 's "The
| Web that Never Was" presentation._
|
| Didn't know about it, here is the video of that talk in
| YouTube:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JOD1AQGqEg
|
| There is a poem-style intro titled "Flatscreens / a song about
| code" until the talk proper starts at 5'11":
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JOD1AQGqEg?t=311
|
| Edit: I'm watching it and it is done in an entertaining style
| but is a bit loose on some details I know about, such as
| implying that the IBM PC development was started in the early
| 1970's when it was in fact started in 1980. Still worth
| watching so far.
|
| Edit 2: finished, it is definitely worth watching. It goes into
| "The Twilight Zone" of a very interesting alternative history.
| And does a good job reporting on the Gary Kildall / IBM missed
| deal for their PC OS.
| spiritplumber wrote:
| Love Gemini but it really could use inline images.
| chwilson wrote:
| Up to the client really, I know that Lagrange[1] supports this.
|
| [1]https://github.com/skyjake/lagrange
| giantrobot wrote:
| Maybe Gemini could use some lightweight markup language. Shit
| it could be a form of hypertext. Maybe it could be called
| something like "hypertext markup language". Then clients
| could still decide how to render the page but there could be
| clear links between documents and sites.
|
| Nah, that probably will never work.
| eep_social wrote:
| Sounds like markdown, where do I sign!
| threatofrain wrote:
| If Gemini really wanted to embrace a world of writing then they
| should've had the elements which HTML lacked, such as a table
| of contents or bibliography.
| fabianholzer wrote:
| I am under the impression that an unstated design objective of
| gemini was preventing eternal september by trading it off for
| staying an eternal echo chamber tobe inhabited only by people
| smart enough to write their own client and server software.
| Kamq wrote:
| Huh? There's plenty of ready clients and servers.
|
| It's limited to those that are primarily interested in text
| (and the occasional image). Which probably prevents it from
| ever going mainstream (and thus an eternal september). What
| it's generally sacrificing is interactivity.
|
| That seems like it's shooting more for the early internet.
| Which, yeah, has quite a bit of overlap with people who can
| code, but not as much as you're implying. And I do remember
| quite a few echo chambers on the early internet, but I remember
| a lot less of them without algorithmic feeds. Just by chance,
| you'd end up running across a bunch of people who disagree with
| you on a lot of things.
| fabianholzer wrote:
| > There's plenty of ready clients and servers.
|
| Sure, but being smart enough to implement one usually also
| means being smart enough to use something of the shelf. But
| few of the available clients are very accessible to a non-
| programming audience. It is basically a "natural" filter
| mechanism.
|
| > What it's generally sacrificing is interactivity. That
| seems like it's shooting more for the early internet.
|
| There is a very rudimentary form mechanism, resembling a bit
| HTTP 0.9, where you could only do get requests with query
| parameters, which might allow to simulate a bit of
| interactivity, but I with the protocol being set in stone
| that would forever remain a hacky simulation (if you only
| have a hammer...)
| doublepg23 wrote:
| > But few of the available clients are very accessible to a
| non-programming audience. It is basically a "natural"
| filter mechanism.
|
| ? There's a very nice one that runs fine on my iPad, Elaho.
| fabianholzer wrote:
| Then I stand corrected (at least for the iOs ecosystem)
| surprisetalk wrote:
| I recently documented some similar thoughts on the "cheap" web:
|
| [1] https://potato.cheap
|
| IMO, protocol is largely a distraction from the good stuff.
|
| The question I've been wondering lately is, "why don't most
| people I meet have personal websites?"
| basscomm wrote:
| I can think of three reasons that more people don't have
| personal websites:
|
| 1. For non technical users (and there are lots of them)
| learning enough HTML and figuring out how to put it somewhere
| accessible is too high of a bar to overcome (forget about
| updating it ever). It's quicker and easier to just establish a
| presence on some social media site.
|
| 2. For technical users who are capable of setting up a website,
| it's easier to just go where people already are (i.e. social
| media).
|
| 3. It's anecdotal, but I rarely see anyone browsing the web
| these days. Most web usage seems to consist of endlessly
| scrolling through Facebook looking for something to interact
| with. A link to somewhere else _might_ get clicked on, but the
| user always goes back to the newsfeed once they 're done
| looking at the link.
| ugjka wrote:
| If you host things on a cheap VPS you also have to pay
| attention how much traffic you are allowed to consume and
| excess will add up to your bill. Some bad bot or enemy can
| certainly give a nice surprise at the end of the month if you
| don't pay attention to alerts on your account
| ravenstine wrote:
| > 3. It's anecdotal, but I rarely see anyone browsing the web
| these days.
|
| Exactly. People on HN overestimate today's use of the web.
| Regular people barely know what a website is at this point or
| have any idea what a browser is or does. They only know it as
| a place to ask The Google something, but even that has
| changed with The Google's app/widget and voice activated
| assistants. Sure those things open up web views, but that
| view may not even have a URL bar, so as far as the user
| knows, they're in "the app", which is kind of true I guess.
| That "Chrome" or "Safari" app is just kind of a funny thing
| that opens up sometimes. Most users aren't opening up the
| browser and typing in URLs. A fraction of them are, but that
| fraction is diminishing, and I would guess that fraction
| mostly reflects desktop users. All this is to say that, if
| you want to create a blog today and not spend effort to
| heavily promote it and use SEO tricks (that will immediately
| go out of date), you can basically forget it if you want
| anyone to read it.
| krapp wrote:
| >The question I've been wondering lately is, "why don't most
| people I meet have personal websites?"
|
| Isn't it obvious? It's simply easier to use a social media
| platform that makes it easy to publish without having to know
| how to set up a server or mess with frameworks or code, and
| that makes it more likely that people will _read_ what you have
| to say. The utility of personal websites has been replaced by
| services which solve both the problems of ease of publishing
| and ease of discovery and networking.
| zoogeny wrote:
| There is a proverb: "If the Mountain won't go to Mohammed, then
| Mohammed must come to the Mountain"
|
| Most people don't have personal websites because getting an
| audience of users to a personal website is like asking a
| mountain to come to you.
|
| Another proverb is: "Meet people where they are at"
|
| There are exceptions to these proverbs but they require
| exceptional people or exceptional circumstances. The vast
| majority of people are not trying to be exceptional with
| respect to the kinds of things they would put on their personal
| websites. Very few individuals are willing to put the effort
| into "moving mountains" to build an audience on their own
| website.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| > The question I've been wondering lately is, "why don't most
| people I meet have personal websites?"
|
| The answer from my experience is simple: _because most people
| that I meet are not programmers_ (at least not in a strict
| sense), and don 't know many programmers.
|
| On the other hand: most programmers and many STEM degree
| holders that I meet _do_ have their own websites.
| ArekDymalski wrote:
| > "why don't most people I meet have personal websites?"
|
| I think that valuable follow-up question would be "Should they
| have one?"
| benrutter wrote:
| I absolutely loved reading potato.cheap- nice work!
|
| I think there's currently a discoverability problem. I _love_
| small websites, blogs, passion projects etc and they give me
| 1000x more joy than social media posts. But I still don 't
| really know a good way to discover them.
|
| Hacker news is honestly probably the way that I find most small
| web stuff, I like kagi's "small internet" filter a lot too. But
| as a whole, the likes of google etc are really geared up
| towards funneling me into looking at posts in social media
| sites rather than anything else.
| threatofrain wrote:
| It's possible that a social media profile is the new website.
| Rather than stand alone as a single page, it's often connected
| to other people and orgs that you may want to be affiliated
| with, so it comes with its own relevant blogroll.
| wharvle wrote:
| Any social media or messenger program:
|
| 1) search name
|
| 2) install app
|
| 3) open app
|
| 4) tap through sign-up. Maybe type your name or other familiar
| details.
|
| 5) Nothing to do here because it already imported all your
| contacts, if relevant.
|
| 6) Post/message. You did this all from your phone. It was free.
| Everyone you care about automatically knows you're there and
| how to reach you in the app. Tap camera icon to post pictures
| or video.
|
| If you have trouble with any of it, ask literally anyone for
| help.
|
| Personal website:
|
| 1) ???????
| troupo wrote:
| > The question I've been wondering lately is, "why don't most
| people I meet have personal websites?"
|
| Because it's still nearly impossible for a non-tech person to
| create one. Facebook/Tiktok/Instagram offer a lot of what
| people would want from a personal website for free _and_ give
| you connections to your friends /family/strangers
| emrah wrote:
| > "why don't most people I meet have personal websites?"
|
| The bigger question for me is, if it was dead simple and all
| they had to do was -say- pay $10/mo, would most people actually
| choose to have a personal website?
|
| I think the issue comes down to most people not seeing enough
| value to have a personal site to pay for it. And if they don't
| want to pay, the free DIY options are either a site like Medium
| or the technical hurdles they have to jump through to get it up
| and running manually
| appplication wrote:
| I wouldn't have one even if it was dead simple and free (or
| honestly even paid). I just have too much on my plate, and I
| struggle to see what value it could bring. Let's say I If I
| had a personal website, then what? I have to create content
| for it on some consistent cadence, which feels like a job.
| And then either no one reads it, which would feel both
| pointless and demoralizing, or I have to actively market it
| to try to get people to read it, which sounds even more
| depressing.
|
| I'm sure this is where people chime in with their
| survivorship bias ("you'd be surprised how many people would
| read your site") or wildly different value sets ("even if no
| one reads it, it can help you _grow!_ "). But some of us just
| want to work as little as possible, and then go home and play
| with our dogs, or go for a run, or binge watch Netflix, or
| read a book, or pop an edible and make some music, or pen
| overly grumpy comments on HN. A personal website doesn't just
| bring me no value, I'd go so far to say it would bring
| negative value.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| I like the gist and spirit of this, of course, but isn't this
| basically impossible in today's day and age? For instance, if I
| want to host a small web server running in my closet to serve cat
| memes to a small number of users, I still am beholden to my ISP
| who 1) must allow me to host a web server in its TOS and 2)
| provide me a static address.
|
| I don't really see any way to get around corporations on the
| internet, unless I'm missing something.
| anamexis wrote:
| I think that depends on how robust you want to be.
|
| I don't have a static IP, but it only changes on the order of
| weeks or months. So a dynamic DNS configuration with a 5 minute
| TTL works fine for me.
|
| I have no idea if web hosting is in my ISP's TOS, and I also
| don't care.
| 0xEF wrote:
| I don't know about elsewhere, but I regularly set up small
| self-hosted web servers at my home (Midwest US) and have never
| heard a peep from my ISP about it. Some of the aforementioned
| servers get 25 - 50 unique visits on a high day, and my ISP
| couldn't care less. I'm not sure they would unless I was
| calling a lot of traffic, which is not really a huge concern
| for Small Webbers. We are few and relatively unnoticed by the
| larger Internet, which is just the way we like it.
| torh wrote:
| 1) Haven't really checked, but...
|
| 2) I have a fixed IPv4 address, and a dynamic IPv6. So far the
| latter also seems to be fairly stable, and I host my webpages
| on both IPv4 and IPv6 these days.
|
| My server is a ThinkPad X240 with VMware ESXi which in turn
| host Ubuntu for SSH, Web, etc... And a Pi-hole VM just to block
| the "wost" of the internet.
| jw_cook wrote:
| ISPs that allow hosting web services are fairly common, but
| you're right, if all your local providers forbid it, you're
| probably out of luck.
|
| For your second point, Dynamic DNS is super useful. I've had a
| good experience with noip.com/ddns.net, but there are plenty of
| other options out there.
| brabel wrote:
| The easiest choice today is to use either GitHub Pages or
| Netlify to host your website. You can literally just drag and
| drop files on their Admin web page and have something
| immediatelly published online.
|
| If you want to run code instead of just keep a static website,
| then you may need to get a cheap server from a multitude of
| companies that offer that (Linode, Digital Ocean, AWS etc) but
| I find that you can almost always get away with static sites
| which require next to no work and will stay up as long as those
| companies are still functioning (or don't shut down the free
| plan).
| kej wrote:
| If anything I think it's easier today than it was 10 or 20
| years ago. There are plenty of free static hosts, free tiers on
| various cloud hosts for interactive sites, and services like
| ngrok or Cloudflare Tunnels that can safely expose a home
| server to the internet.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Nice little article but I could hardly disagree more with the
| headline.
|
| The small web is not for _poor_ men and women. It 's for the
| rich. Those who are rich in culture, intelligence, curiosity,
| engagement...
|
| The existing "web" is for the technologically poor. It's a
| chavvy, shallow plastic shit-filled trench, a ghetto where
| thieves and pimps run free, and good ideas die like dogs - to
| somewhat paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson. I can't see anything of
| value left there, and cannot imagine how anyone would equate
| leaving it behind with being poorer.
| aleph_minus_one wrote:
| Relevant concerning the given example server typed-hole.org:79:
| $ echo "feed" | nc typed-hole.org 79
| julienxx@nein.club toots: thread 'main' panicked at
| src/main.rs:52:39: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err`
| value: reqwest::Error { kind: Request, url: Url { scheme:
| "https", cannot_be_a_base: false, username: "", password: None,
| host: Some(Domain("nein.club")), port: None, path:
| "/api/v1/accounts/01C2ETC44GDGZ27S9WKZMSHKWV/statuses", query:
| Some("limit=5&exclude_reblogs=true&exclude_replies=true"),
| fragment: None }, source: hyper::Error(Connect, Ssl(Error { code:
| ErrorCode(1), cause: Some(Ssl(ErrorStack([Error { code:
| 167772294, library: "SSL routines", function:
| "tls_post_process_server_certificate", reason: "certificate
| verify failed", file: "../ssl/statem/statem_clnt.c", line: 1889
| }]))) }, X509VerifyResult { code: 18, error: "self-signed
| certificate" })) } note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1`
| environment variable to display a backtrace
|
| Looks like an error.
| mattlondon wrote:
| I think Gemini has missed a trick being being deliberately _too
| simple_ - e.g. no inline images, no tables, no forms, no basic
| formatting etc.
|
| I know these were deliberately left out for "simplicity" reasons,
| but then they have a fairly unsimple mechanism for user
| login/auth that totally undermines their claim for making clients
| little more than slightly-augmented-terminals, which for me is a
| smoking gun for these things being missing purely on an
| ideological basis only and an attempt at controlling how people
| use it. That's fine, it's their thing and they can do what they
| want with it.
|
| There is a growing trend of people simply choosing to use XHTML
| Basic (1). This is a "stripped down" version of HTML originally
| intended for early phones, PDAs, set top boxes etc - it has the
| critical missing features of Gemini, but forgoes some of the more
| "advanced" features of the modern web people have issues with.
| I'd highly recommend people simply target that instead.
|
| 1 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XHTML_Basic
| krapp wrote:
| It looks like this still supports the script tag, which seems
| to be the biggest "modern web" feature people want to abandon.
| giantrobot wrote:
| So don't include one. JavaScript isn't fucking mandatory.
| chrsw wrote:
| I think IRC would fit in here too
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| (2021)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-28 23:02 UTC)