Firefox: The Jewel^WEmbarassment of Open Source
drewdevault.com
drewdevault.com
So we should abandon the web in favour of something much more limited which will never be more than a niche standard.
Sorry this is a complete non-sequitur. Maybe it makes a small minority of people happy but it does nothing for the vast majority of users who will have to deal (whether they know it or not) with the web issues described. I don't have answers to these issues but giving up isn't the answer.
Ditch Chrome. Ditch Gmail. Your vote will be a drop in the ocean, but as an internet leader, you need to at least empathize with life outside the Google Gardens.
What if you need to read a "dynamic" email a few years after it was sent, and the company rendering the dynamic components goes away? And those dynamic components are somehow essential to the content of the email? A receipt, for example.
There's some precedent for this kind of regulation. For example, the government requires medicare advantage insurance carriers to send physical mail to insured members under many circumstances, regardless of the member's digital-accessibility constraints or lack thereof.
On this subject, see also: https://linuxreviews.org/Modern_Web_Standards_Are_Leaving_Ni... "Modern Web Standards Are Leaving Niche Web Browsers Behind"
We don't want "the web, but less of it". Do you not realize that "less of it" is still a whole hell of a lot of web? Take a look at Netsurf: 13 years of development and half a million lines of C and it's probably the most advanced rendering engine after the big three. And yet, one of my websites, sourcehut.org, renders like this:
On WebEngine, it should look like this:
And this is one of the most conservative websites on the modern internet. The problem with using the web, but less of it, is that the web is still incredibly complicated and even conservative websites require a massive engineering undertaking to render properly, and it just takes one link to a more liberal page to ruin the experience entirely.
Gemini is a separate, self-contained network, based on a much simpler philosophy. I wrote my Gemini client in two afternoons, and it's already pleasant to use with all Gemini pages.
We don't want the web, but less. We want something else entirely.
The main problem is that "less of it" isn't well defined, so any website, while still appearing to require little of the web, requires its own subset. If there is a clear demarcation about which features are supported and which aren't, then websites can be built targeting this smaller subset, and everyone would be happy. There is no need to reinvent the wheel and start totally from scratch. Reading the Gemini specification, it seems like a NIH of HTTP. What's wrong about a HTTP 1.0 server?
Because lets suppose this will happen, everyone now goes for the sweet land of Gemini.
At the beginning it will be just like the web in the nineties, full of indies web sites, a dozen open source clients, that implements the protocol, yay!
Profit right? Here now enter the 2000's of Gemini.. startups begin to grow stronger most of them mediating and selling the content of others that they get for free.
The individual gemini sites begin to fade, the startups create Gemini clients with a lot of new features starting to turn impossible for new implementations.
(Now its the time we start to ask ourselves, where did we see that movie?)
So whats the point of a new protocol or standard, if it doesnt solve the real issues we are facing nowadays, and the only solution it provides its to manipulate people emotions that we should get back to that romantic era of the internet, the 'belle epoque'.
"Its hard to solve the modern issues? get your time machine pal, lets get to the nineties and start everything again without solving the core issues, and if by chance we happen to thrive, just let those big problems to be solved by your grandson"
There is only one thing we should be doing right now: Decentralize the internet, making "blue seas" for new things to thrive making the moves of FAANGS to centralize and control data, information and computation futile by getting people out of a game they control.
A solution like Gemini would reset the game, yes, but only to have the same problems later, giving the creators were not trying to solve them in the first place.
Gemini is trying to solve a problem by using denial, and as we know, it doesnt actually solve the problems. It just make them disappear temporarily to hit us again in a near future.
You can make a Gemini client in two weeks? thats great, this is probably what you would take to make browsers in the nineties..
I don't think this is going to happen. We're pushing very hard for a culture which embraces the limitations of the protocol. Anyone who even thinks about extensions has the fury of the mailing list wrought upon them as soon as they propose them.
And Gemini is so simple that it's difficult to monetize. There's not much corporate incentive here. I think that corporations will continue to use the web, because the web was basically hand-designed for corporate needs - even going so far as to do so at the expense of the users.
>You can make a Gemini client in two weeks?
Two afternoons. And a stated goal of the specification is not to add substantial changes.
We can decentralize the internet and serve Gemini over our new, decentralized space. We can work on more than just one of THE MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS™ at a time, you know.
People are creating "killer apps" because the web evolved to its current state. Theres a lot of bloat of course, preventing new browsers to emerge and this is a real issue.
But the serious effort would be to scrap most of this bloat and create a leaner web standard that would be easier to implement and yet offer advantages for people developing in it. Seriously i dont know WHY Tim Berners Lee think the solution is something like Solid, but not to create a leaner version of his own creation.
Which developer will be ok to trade what he/she have today for http0.9+markdown? None, because is too little. Maybe the Linux manuals will find they are more popular there..
The creators will not want to add the solutions to problems that will appear, but this will just make it a small niche.
Im trying hard to launch a solution to decentralization that at the same time looks good for the developer and the user, and its really hard, because the status quo is very sophisticated. Its David vs. Goliath and there's no way to get there except by facing Goliath.
If the guys behind this at least optimize it to be "a protocol for terminal/console browsers" i'm pretty sure that they would find a niche to live and start, but not as something that when looking over the shoulders of the current web presents no advantages to developers or users.
They say they are not competing with the web, and that's ok, but they should at least do it in a way were the thing they created manage to exist. Otherwise it just looks like noise.
Sorry if i take this too serious, but its because we are all facing real danger now, the world we are heading to doesnt look pretty if we keep in this direction.
And more noise right now, just takes peoples attention from where we are really needing anyone help, and i think its a disservice, at least right now. Because we get more divided, and we are already just David, it will be even harder by being half-of-David.
Its cool if people dont care, or are in another phase in life, but at least how about to play in another playground, why waste peoples time in a arena and a time we need all the effort we can get?
If a central entity decided they could capture a new market by shipping “Gemini++: The One With DRM So You Can Watch Netflix”, I’m not sure why the “fury of the mailing list” would be a concern for them.
Given that users pick their clients, the folks pushing for fewer features would end up splitting the userbase between “people who agreed with them” and “people who didn’t”.
For an example of how this goes if a medium gets popular, the best example may in fact be HTTP/HTML/etc.
Gemini might be one of them, for applications where hyperlinked text offerings make sense.
But betting too much on a single protocol is what got us in this place.
For example, this site makes no sense to me at all, technically speaking. There's nothing HN offers that couldn't be done with Usenet or a mailing list. Alas...
> not leashing themselves to some TLS cert feudal lord
Really?
You can get one free and change at any time.
If you're really that worried about Let's Encrypt turning evil, you could stop having one when that actually happens. Or get a free one from many DNS providers. Or pay $5 for one. There is zero lock-in, and keeping traffic encrypted is a good thing.
Obviously that doesn't work for the web, but "TLS cert feudal lord" doesn't track for me at all.
But browsers are getting more and more restrictive about what they will allow their users to see. Right now technically ignorant people will be so confused and frightened by warnings they click away. That's okay, I don't care about those people. But for many it's a deal breaker. I give it about 3 years before the big corporate browsers stop allowing HTTP at all. Search engines already deprioritize HTTP and eventually they'll just delist. And it won't hurt their income one bit.
The number of sites that don't HTTP and just 304 to HTTPS is already frightening.
For a non-expert setting up a website from scratch, they can get the whole stack set up automatically and it won't make a difference to them. Especially since they're probably on shared hosting; shared hosting is much closer to the ideal of having the website be a folder of html than running an entire server.
This is the reason why i fear that if we dont act fast for some things, younger generations without the proper historical context, will only follow through a path that treat them like human cattle, only to serve the feudal FAANG rulers.
The cloud + dumb web/app clients duo is really dangerous to us all, and unfortunately this is the path we are heading to.
No control, no freedom, no power, no voice, working as a dumb colony of mere tech consumers.
Centralization should be the enemy of anyone who fight for those values.
>Sustainability is also the one of the many reasons why my web site is served over HTTP and not HTTPS. The problem with HTTPS is that you need to get a certificate from a trusted authority, which either costs money or is free but needs to be updated every month, and even if you pay for it, you need to renew the certificate every year or so. If the operation of your blog depends on a monthly certificate renewal from Let's Encrypt – even if the renewal is set up to be automatic – it is less sustainable than serving your site over HTTP. HTTP will always be around, will always be supported and will never require a certificate.
>Another problem with HTTPS is that it is very difficult to revert back to HTTP once you have started using HTTPS. Every outside link to your web site will be incorrect, and you can't redirect HTTPS traffic to HTTP without a valid certificate. In other words, once you start using HTTPS, you will be forever dependent on the certificate renewal process.
Though you can pipeline just fine on HTTP/1.1 if people would actually enable it.
We should definitely definitely definitely be trying to help pipelining. Unless you send only one resource, pipelining is probably a huge win.
And it definitely, from the server side, makes things way easier. As you can get a bunch of requests & start satisfying them in whatever order works for you. This isn't like HTTP 1.1 Pipelining, which was in order: now connected systems can out of order send whatever data they have, without having to buffer it & wait for the first asked for data to clear the pipe.
This is massively massively helpful tech we are creating. Attaching it to "very bloated webpages", & implying this is something "we should move away from" is a high level of shade that is not at all in any way deserved nor fair nor accurate.
You don't stop using the Interstate system bc a stretch of road is bad.
This is just a sad story without any winners.
I mean, in one comment your bundling together a group of people, assuming that one belief begets another, then comparing that belief with other popular less divisive beliefs. It feels like an attempt at shaming, which I personally don't think is productive.
I believe that who and how one loves is no one else's business except that of the consenting adults involved. Full stop. No equivocation, no caveats.
Anyone else needs to mind their own fucking business.
However, trashing someone's career because of their personal beliefs (with the caveat that those beliefs play no role in their professional position) is wrong.
Assuming Eich didn't bring those beliefs into the office (whether that be by his speech or actions as an employee), it's irrelevant to his job.
If we believe in liberty (such as the right of consenting adults to love how they need to do so), then we have to accept that others have liberty too -- within the constraint that the exercise of one's liberty doesn't impinge on the liberty of others[0].
Want to hate on Eich because he's a homophobe? Go for it. Want to call him out on his homophobia? Get on wit' yo' bad self!
But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla.
What if you had a homophobic boss who hounded you out of your job because of your beliefs? Is that right?
If you want to have a truly free society, you need to allow unpopular opinions to be held and expressed. And unless and until those opinions/beliefs actually impinge on the rights of others, we should tolerate (note I say 'tolerate' not embrace, endorse or accept) them.
[0] As in "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla.
Ignoring the other arguments about comparing this to other basic human rights, if his politics are bringing a bunch of hate onto the company then it does impact his ability to do his job effectively.
That's a fair point.
I'd only say that I find it illiberal and deeply reactionary and regressive to hound someone professionally because of their private actions (in that case, a monetary political donation).
As much as I believe that all of us, regardless of ethnicity, melanin content, chromosome configuration, religion, or any of many, many other "differences" should equally benefit from the rule of law and equality under those laws, whether that be loving who and how we choose, agency over what happens to/with our bodies or any other human/civil right, I also believe that we need to extend that to those who disagree with me.
Because if we are only free to live/speak/believe as we wish as long as other folks don't kick up a fuss about it, and along the way destroy our livelihoods, is that really freedom?
And if it's okay to do so for those who hold "vile" beliefs, who's to say that beliefs we hold won't be considered "vile" next week, next month or next year?
As such, by all means call out those who espouse hate and discrimination. But destroying someone's livelihood because you don't like what they think or say is antithetical to the ideals of liberty and equality.
If enough of his employees feel the same way, and there is enough negative press from others (who are also just democratically expressing their opinions), then clearly his position as CEO was untenable.
To equate that to destroying someone's livelihood based on their political beliefs is exactly the sort of mental gymnastics which keeps me coming back to this site.
Donating to prop 8 doesn't qualify as impinging on others rights?
"But none of that had anything to do with Eich's qualifications or ability to run Mozilla"
From a tech standpoint sure, but Mozilla has LGBTQ employees and contributors and it was a public relations nightmare.
Are you arguing that our democratic process impinges on people's rights?
Are you arguing that anyone who disagrees with a particular position that you support should not have the same political agency that you do?
If so, then you are espousing support for a society that punishes non-conformity and freedom of thought and expression. I find that idea to be deeply authoritarian and illiberal.
I oppose denying basic human and civil rights to anyone.
And while that includes the right of folks to love who and how they wish, to have agency over their bodies and lives, it also includes the right of everyone to believe and speak as they choose, even if -- especially if -- I disagree with them.
While I agree with the sentiment that all humans should be allowed to love whom and in the way they see fit and vehemently disagree with Eich's personal views, I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything.
He took part in a political process. That he was on the side that you (and I, for that matter) disagree with, doesn't invalidate his right to do so.
His side was (and rightly so, in my view) smacked down.
However, I take serious umbrage to your characterization that I'm wrapping anything in the flag, or that claiming that everyone should be allowed to exercise their political franchise (which you appear to reject) is disingenuous.
I believe that individuals voting their conscience in free and fair elections is the heart of democracy.
Unless I misunderstand your position (which is certainly possible), you appear to claim that other citizens (in this case, Eich) should not have the right to vote their conscience if you (or I, for that matter) disagree with their position.
What, exactly, is disingenuous about that?
I think so. I'm not saying he can't vote his conscience but if he votes for a measure to revoke the right to marry from people in his OWN company those people are free to oppose his appointment as CEO as part of their freedom of expression.
"I can't agree with your assessment that he "forced" anyone to do anything."
You're right. He attempted and failed to do so since the measure didn't pass.
It's not inconsistent to democratically vote for something that restricts the freedoms of someone else. Gun laws, abortion, wearing masks, etc. And people are free to associate with me based on my views on the subject.
Thanks for the apology.
Obama had the same position I did in 2008.
What's with the ignorance or (I hope not) revisionist history?
Even better, Obergfell v. Hodges[1] made marriage equality the law in the entire US in 2015. Better late than never.
While I strenuously disagree with the position you held (still hold?) around marriage equality and find such a stance to be illiberal and downright nasty, I also believe that your right to hold that position as a private citizen should be tolerated in a free society.
What's more, I don't believe that your opinions (and actions related to them) as a private citizen should be reason to hound you out of your professional position, unless you used your position to impose those opinions on the workplace you managed.
It's unfortunate that some people hold opinions about freedom of thought and the exercise of the political franchise that are as odious as your opinions about marriage equality.
And it's even worse that such people executed on their illiberal, reactionary ideas to force you from your position.
A free society must tolerate unpopular and illiberal ideas, or it's not a free society. Which is why I have decried your ouster from Mozilla in this thread.
That said, I believe your ideas about marriage equality are illiberal, anti-democratic and just plain nasty. But they are your ideas, and in a free society, you are entitled to them.
There's no point arguing if you can't even accurately state the other side's views (you know, the ones Obama aligned himself with in 2008 in order to get elected).
This used to be a required skill in political debating, but it's not taught or practiced much now. It definitely is more work than simply putting bad intentions or premises into your opponent's mouth, grandstanding against the resulting straw-man, and hiving off into disjoint factions that can be divided and conquered more easily.
Still, I would never pull that kind of crap on you or any other HN antagonists. We need to work together against common enemies, if we can. Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today.
Obviously, I don't know the specific thoughts in your head, but I expect (and please do correct me if I am wrong) it goes something like this: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid, and are the only marriages which should be recognized. But a 'civil union' would be okay as that wouldn't violate my religious belief." Or something similar.
Your agreement with President Obama's stated alignment to similar views, which (as I'm sure you know) turned out not to be his views[0] at all clarifies your view for me. Thank you.
However, regardless of your personal views (especially as it appears to be part of your religious belief), it's inappropriate for California or the US as a whole to regulate civil marriage in this fashion. As Judge Walker found in Hollingsworth v. Perry, Proposition 8 was a violation of the due process and equal protection rights of those seeking to marry others of the same biological sex[0].
And I believe that reasoning, as well as the evidence and legal arguments presented[1], were more than sufficient to support Judge Walker's ruling.
I strongly recommend you read those transcripts, as I did. The arguments and evidence presented are clear and convincing.
But I'd go even further and say that regulating marriage in this way to satisfy a specific set of religious beliefs is unsupportable on First Amendment grounds (and applied to the several states via the 14th Amendment), as preferring one set of beliefs disadvantages the First Amendment rights of others who do not share those beliefs.
The views you appear to hold and that President Obama claimed to hold are, if codified into law, in direct conflict with the Constitution.
While you may believe that it's morally or ethically wrong for those of the same sex to marry, and to act upon that belief (by not marrying someone of the same sex), it is not permissible for the government to enshrine that belief into law.
As such, it's not that I don't understand those views. Although whether I understand them or not is irrelevant. My issue is that the government is restricted from giving preference to those (or any other) religious views.
Those religious views may be relevant to those who hold them, but they cannot be imposed on others who do not. It's a pretty simple idea.
That's no straw-man. That's a core tenet of our system of government.
>Still, I would never pull that kind of crap on you or any other HN antagonists. We need to work together against common enemies, if we can. Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today.
You apparently misunderstand my point and my motivation. Just because I disagree with your views on this particular subject, doesn't necessarily mean that I must needs reject any other views you might have.
Don't confuse me with someone who immediately assumes you are an unredeemably evil person because you don't share this particular view with me.
I never said anything even approaching that.
What's more, the issue is moot and has been for just over five years.
You accuse me of "putting bad intentions or premises into your opponent's mouth, grandstanding against the resulting straw-man, and hiving off into disjoint factions that can be divided and conquered more easily," but that's clearly not the case.
In fact, if you read through this thread you'll see that I strongly support your right not only to hold the views that you do, but to act upon those views, within the strictures of our legal system, as you see fit.
Even more, you assume that I am unwilling to work with those who share some goals, but not others. As to the ones you mention: "Warmongers, crypto-backdoor advocates, surveillance capitalists, banksters, polluters, DRM-everything vendors -- in general, the monied interests and oligarchs who call too many shots today," I am also appalled and wish to change the trajectory of each and every one of those important issues. And I'm happy to work with those who support those goals and wish to address them in a principled way.
As I said repeatedly in this thread, that if we wish to have a free society, we must tolerate even -- no, especially -- views with which we vehemently disagree.
It's not about specific views or ideas, it's the principle that's important -- at least to me.
That I disagree with your views on marriage equality (or at least what I understand of them based on your support for Proposition 8 and your further elucidation here) is based in exactly the same set of principles.
As you should have noted, I loosed my venom just as strongly against those who seek to punish or silence others for views with which they disagree. And again I do so in support of exactly the same principles.
I find it disappointing that you attack me for expressing my views while I'm defending your right to express yours. More's the pity.
To put a fine point on that, please note that I did not denigrate you as a human or a citizen, nor did I call for you to be silenced or forced to betray your beliefs. Just the opposite in fact.
All I did was rather pointedly disagree with (my understanding of) your views on marriage equality.
Please try to separate your reaction from my statements.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/obama-frustr...
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/sup...
I would. I considered RMS's previous personal politics on pedophilia similarly deplorable and distasteful and I actively, financially support him as Chief Gnuisance because it was his personal politics and he is entitled to his view, and all humans are naturally imperfect and many of the most brilliant in some ways have the greatest weaknesses in others. I still like Roald Dahl's books after learning about his antisemitism and I don’t resent Terry Davis over his racism.
The world is not black and white. We should do our best to work constructively with those around us to improve the world. That often includes tolerating ideas and beliefs that you may personally disagree with.
For what it's worth, as a die hard card carrying liberal - I find your attitude cancerous to both society and democracy.
I'll note that it's mainly users of Firefox who had to "face the consequences" of firing Eich for his views...
Sorry, but that's not how the world works. The web is here to stay and practically nobody cares about your silly little gopher clone.
Mozilla is the best failed project open source has to offer. Nothing comes close in terms of popularity and brand awareness. Perhaps people know of GIMP because of its funny name, but that's about all the open source tools any layman is able to name, if any.
I admit I have a soft spot for Mozilla, having used Firefox since Firebird. I really want them to succeed, which colours my thoughts on this topic, and it makes me sad to hear them engaging in shady behaviour.
But the impression I got from this post is this: the author believes if Mozilla focuses solely on Firefox (no VPN, more engineers, Servo development full steam ahead) they would be doing better, with Firefox having more users and more money than ever before to go around. I do not believe this to be the case. The post frames "Laid off 25% of its employees, mostly engineers, many of whom work on Firefox" and "Used their brand to enter the saturated VPN grift market" and "Started, and killed, a dozen projects which were not Firefox" as Mozilla's self-inflicted failures, rather than wounds sustained while engaging in battle with corporate giants. I disapprove of the increased executive pay, as well as the advertisements and add-on changes. But I cannot quite find them to be totally at fault for all seven listed items.
There's been a lot of engineering effort recently from big companies to make the Web more featureful, and its associated infrastructure faster, than ever before. I completely agree with the author (see the linked post) when he points out that the massive side-effect of this is that only a big company can make a Web browser. It's something that seems to have crept up on us, and will almost certainly take control away from individual users. It sucks.
So as far as I'm concened, Google has been the company complicating Web standards without talking to anyone else, developing infrastructure that's only appropriate for massive organisations, and (more recently) exempting themselves from opting out of tracking, all while pushing their browser through previously-unheard-of advertising channels to give them the advantage. All this means Firefox has to catch up, and the money has to come from somewhere — hence the layoffs and other projects. I don't see any other way for them to reach the future I want.
To repeat: it sucks.
While I wasn't old enough to donate, I liked seeing the 2004 Firefox page in the New York Times. A few years ago I walked through London and saw three electronic Chrome adverts in half an hour. I think Mozilla has the deck stacked against them, severely. And I think nothing would make Google executives happier than to find _Firefox_ is the one getting called names.
I think the whole web is garbage and I'm prepared to throw it out. That's the point I'm getting at here. I don't see Mozilla as the last holdouts of a system which is true and good before the flood of Google overtakes everything and ruins the good thing. I see Mozilla as already drowning in that flood and the "good thing" as being not good, but abhorrent.
Maybe they could have held the tide, but instead they stuck their fingers in every fad they could reach, and got burned, and now they're neck deep in problems of their own making. And I don't think it'd be better if they were ankle deep anyway.
What does this mean in practice? Will Sourcehut move to Gemini-only? Will you stop using the web for anything except advertising Gemini? Are you suggesting a more gradual multilateral migration?
There are a number of blockers, but I would ultimately like to also make SourceHut available over Gemini.
My goal is to persuade people that the alternative is compelling and get them to join up of their own volition. I'm not going to pull the rug out of anyone who is already relying on HTTP/HTML to get things done.
Yeah, I agree that saying “Thing X is bad; don't use it” is usually less persuasive than saying “Thing Y is good; try it!”... and then Thing Y gradually displaces Thing X.
I get the complexity argument, but the rest... meh
I don't know your metric for success. I need one because I acquire linux ISOs and my new ISP suddenly sends me notices.
Mozilla VPN is rebranded Mullvad. Firefox Private Network is rebranded Cloudflare Warp.
They even obtained a place at Khronos and have a voice on the future of compute & graphic standards.
I donate to Blender because I know that not a single cent is wasted.
Mozilla is the opposite, everything is wasted & there is no focus.
I would gladly donate to a new foundation for a browser that takes the same model as Blender, Godot, etc. : start small, stay focused & don't sacrifice your core values
OTOH even cutting execute pay to zero wouldn't come close to helping Firefox's financials so I think this argument is overblown.
If any better option becomes available, I will immediately switch. I hate that they shove updates down your throat, and you have to literally set a policy to disable them. Then if you ask about it, they look at you like you are crazy. I don't like auto updates. That's my right. I find a version that works, I don't want it changing every week. I want to update when I want to.
Then you have other stuff like the megabar, which Firefox implemented to be more like Chrome (I guess). Looking through about 10 issues on bugzilla about it that were all closed as WON'T FIX, then they hide any negative comments and threaten bugzilla ban from anyone that express dislike. And cherry on top, they make it impossible to disable via settings, you have to do CSS hacks.
Drew drops that bomb and walks off stage. Okay, so what comes after the web?
I mean, we fucked the thing up once already by sparking WebKit and Blink through KHTML, but ...
gemini is a new internet protocol which:
- is heavier than gopher
- is lighter than the web
- will not replace either
I'm pretty much in Gemini's exact target market: my websites are simple and almost entirely text, with no tracking, minimal JavaScript, and a hefty CSP. I like implementing simple network protocols and I'm annoyed with the ever-increasing complexity of the Web. And I write command-line software, so Gemini is right up my alley. So when I first heard of it, about a year ago, I was really excited for there to be a new way to convert my sites to this new, simpler hypertext–
But when I tried it, it didn't let me build the sort of site that I, personally, would want to read.
• The documentation sites for my software (https://specsheet.software, https://dns.lookup.dog, https://the.exa.website) all feature inline code samples, complete with the colours you'll see in your terminal. Being able to see an example command and then see its exact output really helps me learn a tool, and I wish more programs were documented in this way. When I re-wrote the documentation as man pages, it was like going from colour to black-and-white, and when I Gemini-ified the documentation, it felt like I was reading man pages.
• My personal home page has blog posts that use styles to sound like the way I talk. I emote. I emphasise. I bold important sentences, and shove side-notes to the side. If I'm writing technically, I'll include charts and side-tables of data. And, again, I like to include syntax-highlighted code snippets and images where appropriate.
I'm not a marketer. I abhor advertising. I'm not trying to usurp the world's communications channel for my own gain. I'm just trying to publish content I want to see more of, and my attempts at offering a Gemini version resulted in exactly zero pages.
This is why it disappoints me when you say this:
> The rest of the web is either (1) best served some other way or (2) not worth keeping.
Do you really think I belong with "the rest of the web"? Or do you think my sites are not worth keeping?
Supported
>complete with the colours
I don't want your colors in my terminal. Gemini is a user-agent, and this time we actually mean it. It's not a developer-agent or vendor-agent. You provide the content and the client provides the presentation, by design, and if you don't like it, then you are missing the point. I looked at your HTML pages and I find the colors uncomfortable to read.
>My personal home page has blog posts that use styles to sound like the way I talk. I emote. I emphasise. I bold important sentences.
Use asterisks and underscores and slashes then, like we've all managed to do just fine since the dawn of the internet.
>Do you really think I belong with "the rest of the web"? Or do you think my sites are not worth keeping?
No. I think your websites are suited to Gemini, but you don't understand what Gemini is trying to do. Your tools seem to be bizzarely obsessed with colors, though, so I can understand why you would recoil at the idea that a document format might not invite you to its party.
Y'know, for some reason, I get that a lot.
The point you seem to have missed, though, is that I'm a user too. I want a user-agent to view the things that I, a user, want to see, and those things are colours and bold and italics. I don't want to have the flashiest site around to wow everyone; I want to see more sites like mine. My content has colours and formatting and images, where they're a part of the content, not merely its presentation; and one of my tools is doing very well, so even if you don't agree with it, there are enough people that do to make it worth my while.
And if Gemini ever gains the requisite capabilities, I won't be offended if you turn the colours off. It's your right as a user, too.
I know that one of the goals of Gemini is not just to have a protocol with no tracking, but to have a protocol where no tracking can sneak in. Looking at the state of the Web right now, that's a laudable goal. The same goes for having a simple easy-to-implement protocol, which formatting would throw a wrench right in the middle of.
But if that's the case — if not being able to have my preferred Gemini experience is considered "collateral damage" because Gemini prioritises other features than my favourite ones — then please just say that, rather than insinuating that I don't count, or don't understand. I'm trying to engage with you as a "netizen" (I haven't used that word for a decade), and you reply with "this time we actually mean it", as though there are sides in a fight. I don't want to be stuck with the Web any more than you do.
The web has limitations, too. You work within them.
So as somebody who also works on very minimalistic, static sites, I don't see your philosophy working out, based on history.
Your aversion to even typography is also not user friendly. You claim it is, but in the end it's just all about you. You do not consider what most people consider a "document".
You always work within your limitations, no matter what the platform is.
Ah, there it is. The "you don't need that feature" attitude that made desktop Linux the roaring success it is today.
gemini://drewdevault.com/2020/10/22/Firefox-the-embarassment-of-FOSS.gmi
It's posted on the web as well because users of the web is its intended audience.