[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [gopher] Joining in: I'm the maintainer/host of Gopher Proxy

> > > In principle, I have nothing but accolades for what you are doing. It's
> > > just that I don't think it's the right way to get people to use gopher
> > > resources, and further, only serves for further marginalize the
> > > protocol, and has contributed in a big way to support for the protocol
> > > to be dropped from browsers (Firefox just last year I think?).
> From what I remember, Mozilla was *quite* invested into dropping Gopher
> support. No matter what arguments or comments people had against, they
> were not even complaining about having to maintain the code (well, they
> *did* complain, but once Cameron stepped forward and offered to maintain
> it, it became quite obvious that it wasn't the real reason). I doubt not
> having a way to access gopher though HTTP would have stopped them.

Bug 388195 brings back a lot of bad memories, sigh.

On the plus side, the JavaScript proof of concept I wrote up (and which
they ignored) became the first version of OverbiteFF.

But yes, I agree with Nuno's recollection. The fix was in from the beginning,
and mitigating factors weren't really part of their analysis. That said,
that fight would have just been waged later, so moving to OverbiteFF was a
good thing overall and put the client code in the hands of the community.

------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@floodgap.com
-- We are all worms. But I do believe I am a glowworm. -- Winston Churchill ---

Gopher-Project mailing list

Reply to: