Re: Gopher Desktop Client
On 3/11/2021 5:29 PM, Ivan J. wrote:
> On 12 March 2021 01:45:13 CET, Luke Emmet <email@example.com> wrote:
> IMHO, Gemini is just a Frankenstein protocol with no real usecase. You can either use HTTP or use Gopher. It goes against basic philosophy to invent something like Gemini.
I must say, I certainly don't concur. My sentiments with gophers:// lies
somewhere in between the good work Bitreich is doing and Cameron's
We've been tippy-toeing around the SSL/TLS notion where Gopher is
concerned for many years here. Further, TCP 70 is already the registered
port for Gopher (something many other entities don't actually have),
and I am of the opinion that TLS over Gopher should also use that same
port, instead of breaking things up like HTTP did using 443.
There's no technical reason why it shouldn't, as long as clear text is
always supported for backward compatibility by the Daemon.
Now Where Gemini is concerned, to me, your proclaiming that it has no
use case is belied by the fact that it enjoys a rather explosive growth
in usage even at this early stage in its development; and to poo poo it
like that sort dismisses other innovations like Yggdrasil, I2P, IPFS.
Gopher and Gemini also share a mutual historical introduction. Gopher
was simply just written and introduced to the Internet folk by a few
close knit programmers. It was basically thrust upon the community which
immediately embraced it with rapid adoption.
Yes, it's indeed a Frankenstein, and if you'll remember correctly, Dr
Frankenstein's creation was a beautiful creature. Gopher being fixed for
so long, with the most dramatic extentions to date being aguably those
of John's, and really, I'm not sure that Gopher would be where it is
today without the hURL.
Anyway, I'm just saying that really, it's all good. There are real
enemies out there on the wire in the clearnet - Gopher and Gemini don't
share that distinction with respect to their relationship with each other.
> Best regards,
Bradley D. Thornton
Manager Network Services