It is rather easy to have one running alongside the other and the gemtext syntax is such it is quite easy to make automatic converters. Did you encounter issues maintaining both?
I mean I truly believe anyone can do small websites using HTML standards so for the actual content producer Gemini doesn't have much appeal. On the other hand using Gemini provide the user/visitor a guarantee he will not end up following a link and ending up in a bloated, privacy and ad nightmare. So I think it is sane to offer that even if you believe in small web.
The difference is you can actually access it today without fear of being thrown back in 2025 by doing such a simple thing as following a link on the same protocol.
Similar to the indie web/slow web movements, it's genuinely a shame that these qualities are essentially anathema to the business model of so much of modern social media.
Plus glad to see it call "Gemini" instead of "Gemini Protocol", too bad google stole the name after Gemini was a thing. And unlike gopher, Gemini renders fine on Cell Phones.
As I mentioned before in these threads, I find Gemini far easier to maintain then anything associated with html. It is very simple. I had moved my WEB space to Gemini on sdf* a while ago and my old WEB space points to my Gemini Site.
FWIW, google forced Gemini to change its URLs, it is now:
A month or so ago, I migrated all of my Gemini posts to my blog and shut down my Gemini server.
For me there wasn't really a point to the effort. I'm glad the protocol exists and that people are enjoying it, but I'll stick to HTML.
It is rather easy to have one running alongside the other and the gemtext syntax is such it is quite easy to make automatic converters. Did you encounter issues maintaining both?
I mean I truly believe anyone can do small websites using HTML standards so for the actual content producer Gemini doesn't have much appeal. On the other hand using Gemini provide the user/visitor a guarantee he will not end up following a link and ending up in a bloated, privacy and ad nightmare. So I think it is sane to offer that even if you believe in small web.
Never heard of it, but what's the difference with the web in 1994?
The difference is you can actually access it today without fear of being thrown back in 2025 by doing such a simple thing as following a link on the same protocol.
I believe that's the entire point.
TLS. Beyond that, as little as possible is basically the goal.
But but but... how would this would allow me to run arbitrary client-side code in order to snoop on users, mine shitcoins or enforce DRM?!
> Simpler
> Human Scale
> Distraction Free
> Privacy Protecting
Similar to the indie web/slow web movements, it's genuinely a shame that these qualities are essentially anathema to the business model of so much of modern social media.
So glad to see the actual Gemini here instead of the modern AI horror most of the people think about when hearing Gemini.
You’re so glad that, rather than discuss it, you redirect the conversation back to Google’s Gemini?
Plus glad to see it call "Gemini" instead of "Gemini Protocol", too bad google stole the name after Gemini was a thing. And unlike gopher, Gemini renders fine on Cell Phones.
As I mentioned before in these threads, I find Gemini far easier to maintain then anything associated with html. It is very simple. I had moved my WEB space to Gemini on sdf* a while ago and my old WEB space points to my Gemini Site.
FWIW, google forced Gemini to change its URLs, it is now:
https://geminiprotocol.net/docs/gemtext-specification.gmi
and the FAQ, the article has the old URL
https://geminiprotocol.net/docs/faq.gmi
* sdf:
https://wiki.sdf.org/doku.php?id=gemini_site_setup_and_hosti...
List of clients are here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_(protocol)
> too bad google stole the name after Gemini was a thing
Gemini was one of the 48 constellations described by the 2nd century AD astronomer Ptolemy
[dead]