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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] j4yc33@piefed.social 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Gopher with certificates.

[–] edinbruh@feddit.it 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Wait, gopher didn't use certificates? What's wrong with these people? And of course these are going to be just gpg certificates, not authoritative I imagine, or it would defeat the entire decentralised thing.

I really don't get this stuff. If you want pure text websites, just make them, you are allowed to use pure html, you don't have to use JavaScript if you don't want to. You can get real certificates for free from Let's Encrypt, and you can use any free DNS service you want

[–] lime@feddit.nu 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

gopher predates http, of course it didn't have certificates.

[–] edinbruh@feddit.it 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

First of all, they were developed around the same time; second, no one said that a protocol should remain unchanged for 35 years. And lastly, the people in "what's wrong with these people" are the people pretending gopher is any good today, and a reasonable alternative to the web, which factually isn't the case as apparently it did remain unchanged for 35 years. And if it didn't remain unchanged but did not add certificates, it would just make things look even worse.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 12 points 2 days ago

it's been unchanged because http got more popular.

there is a vocal part of the indieweb that does not want encrypted communication because it increases the system requirements, and because it disincentivises sending sending any sensitive information. i don't really agree with that assessment but i do think there is something to not sending stuff you don't need.