cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/24735701
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)
It is similar to the old gopher: text files, links, and images form a hypertext optimized for reading. Text is formatted like Markdown - but even simpler.
Clients display text, like an eBook, or images / media.
Servers can run on a PC or Raspberry Pi which needs half a Watt of power. No FAANG companies needed. No expert knowledge needed - not more difficult than running a file sharing client.
I think it is the right thing for defense of democracy and sharing your voice in the digital realm.


What’s wrong with http?
There’s varying takes on why folks prefer Gemini:
w3m,linksandlynxto view simplistic webpages, but anyone, who actually wants to use the web with these, will quickly run into webpages they cannot view.With Gemini, you can use tons of clients, some of them even written in Bash, because it’s so simple, and you will not run into pages you cannot view.
Well, and through survivorship bias, folks on Gemini tend to be nerds who care about permacomputing and the like, so that also helps with finding folks that have similar interests, even if you might end up reading their gardening blog, due to the aforementioned point.
The first two points have nothing to do with HTTP‽
The last one is just August before Eternal September ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Well, HTTP + HTML+JS+CSS. The “World Wide Web”, if you will.
with gemini, you will quickly run into webpages you can’t view as well (ie. all of them)
Alright yeah, I half-expected as much when I wrote that sentence. Surely someone will post about a webpage they found, or will source something from e.g. Wikipedia. But well, hopefully it still happens less often, or at least there’s less of an expectation that you look at linked webpages. 🫠
I think the better comparison (whether that’s technically accurate or not) is to HTML + CSS + JS. Which is overly complicated for just small blogs and personal webpages etc. I think that’s the “issue” Gemini is trying to solve.
Still not an issue. Just throw out all modern web frameworks and stick to content-focused HTML. You can even do plaintext with unclickable links.
Or if you like a more readable markup with a very thin markdown layer on either the client or server side.
I think TeX is the right way.
Have you ever seen HTML without CSS? It’s ugly as hell
…or is it?
https://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
yes
http://bettermotherfuckingwebsite.com/
Whoa. An update to the HTML Hell Page!
I have 2 webpages like this. Calling them webpages is a bit of stretch to be honest. One is a joke and the other is extremely single idea only. I was just experimenting with some stuff, that’s all. But they are up and they don’t need CSS. :-)
Edit: BTW forgot to mention, you can output text only without HTML. In that case (like in the Random of the Week) you can use it in the terminal like output of a program.
I have a few (internal) web pages like that at work, they do the job but yes they are ugly
Depends on the client side native styles. With Gemini, those are also needed to be adjusted.
Depends to what you compare. Many CSS (worse if it uses JavaScript) is ugly and I prefer the native look without CSS. But only if the content works well, which they often don’t… And that’s ugly design.