Comment by 🍀 gritty
@stack agreed, you bring some levity to the space
Mar 11 · 8 weeks ago
15 Later Comments ↓
👻 darkghost · Mar 11 at 23:46:
What is this, a funeral? Someone throw a pie! 👋🥧
🛸 bluesman [OP] · Mar 12 at 01:05:
Okay, this one made me laugh out loud:
I wear a stethoscope so that in a medical emergency I can teach people a valuable lesson about assumptions.
IIRC there was some NSFW ASCII floating around here somewhere
🛸 bluesman [OP] · Mar 12 at 04:51:
I wouldn't know anything about that. Nor would I know anything about any NSFW animated GIFs (which play just fine in Alhena).
🛸 bluesman [OP] · Mar 12 at 14:06:
I resemble that remark.
I don't understand. What makes the gemini protocol earnest? Are you actually talking about the content in geminispace?
👻 darkghost · Mar 12 at 14:43:
I mean have you read the Gemini spec? There's not a single joke in it!
🛸 bluesman [OP] · Mar 12 at 14:54:
darkghost makes a great point. The Gemini spec is drier than the Atacama Desert. That said, intuition tells me there's no technical reason for Gopher to be funnier than Gemini. As far as content, only a proper audit could tell the tale. I have to say though, naming a protocol "Gopher" is inherently silly.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 12 at 15:14:
Gopher has been around for decades. It's essentially dead, and people who still use it have nothing to prove.
Gemini, or the other hand, is new(-ish). Many people who use it see themselves as agents or change, with an agenda.
I''m not surprised they're different.
Are you guys kidding about the Gemini spec?
It is a joke of a spec!
I love Gemini, but the spec... There are maybe 5 gemtext features available as line types, but each one is signaled in a completely different and silly way!
You have one, two, and three character tags. Some require a soace after, some don't. And then there is the container preformatted tag that needs to be closed.
For such a tiny spec, it is alnost inconceivable how much was poorly described, omitted, or a bad idea.
I often thought of it as a prank, literally.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 12 at 16:57:
@stack : you're perhaps referring to the Gemtext specification, rather than the protocol specification? Gemtext can get off anywhere it likes, but I thought the base protocol was pretty sound.
Apart from the dependence on TLS. But we have Spartan, I guess, if we don't like that.
I am largely kidding...
Gemtext is clearly a part of the overall Gemini spec. But if not mistaken, I still see issues coming up with how to interpret the protocol spec. And I think the initial spec had to be reworked to make more sense, right?
Again, Gemini is pretty much all the Internet I use, and I am a proponent.
🛸 bluesman [OP] · Mar 12 at 20:07:
I've been largely kidding this whole time. Both protocols are equally hilarious (at times).
🚀 lars_the_bear · Mar 13 at 08:19:
Writing a watertight specification is difficult, unless you resort to some kind of mathematical formulation, and then nobody else will understand it.
Because the developer base for Gemini stuff is so small, I do worry that we'll end up with a kind of de-facto spec, that's mostly defined by the behaviour of existing code. I'm not saying that's happening, only that it could.
Original Post
Is Gemini Too Earnest? — I've been spending a lot of time testing in gopherspace and it pains me to say it but I think Gopher may have Gemini beat when it comes to comedy. [gopher link] Bitreich Cookbook [gopher link] Dad Joke [gopher link] Do I Have Internet? I've worked with both protocols and in my professional opinion, there's no technical reason Gemini needs to be so earnest. (TLS can be a pain but this is ridiculous). Don't even get me started on Nex.