-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to bbs.geminispace.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini; charset=utf-8
so I'm trying to wrap my mind around this SuperTXT protocol but I'm just not understanding it all that well.
It seems to be a version of gemtext that is accessed via SSH based tools. I haven't tried the graphical browser but was wondering if this is the basis of it?
Jan 09 · 4 months ago · 👍 zetamacs
That seems to be on the right track. Rather than invent a new protocol to serve content, it's a new way of leveraging an existing one and presenting content in a way that is still a "rich" experience.
Their `cats` client certainly is more complex than the barest Gemini client one could write, but it's also handling far more.
Of course, at its best, what they're describing has all the strengths and ubiquity of SSH. At its worst, everything that's wrong with SSH is wrong with this approach and a poorly configured system is going to be compromised (which is also true of most anything internet-facing).
TL;DR Neat idea. I'd be interested to see where it goes.
The markup is too complex. It does provide some additional features that Gemini can't, but Spartan/Gemini is still the best match for me. If I need more, I can switch to HTML.
I couldn't figure it out either. There are a lot of loosely related ideas here, but it's not clear to me how it's all supposed to fit together into something cohesive. There's nothing solid for me to grab onto. To be fair, this is the same feeling I get reading through W3C specs.
It seems to swap out TLS for SSH - Gemini uses TLS not sure why it is neccessary to pull in the SSH stack to read information pages / Geminipages.
Are there any other advantages to the SuperTXT approach?
@ERnsTL I think you just described the main advantage, and it seems a good one on its own.
It's not *necessary* to pull the SSH stack into it, but I think what they're trying to do is build an application on a protocol everyone already knows and has a client for. Still smol, still niche, but no need to install anything to view it.
I'm not an advocate or anything, just trying to speak to their reasoning as I understand it.
Anchors, i.e. internal links is a feature I'd rather like. It could work for large one-page documents, and even cases like a single page blog
@clseibold Now, that I think is a bit unfair.
I'll freely grant that there's bound to be a slew of MS-DOS machines out there with no SSH client, but for those running Mac OS X, basically any GNU/Linux distro, any of the *BSDs, and (yeah, really) Windows too, an SSH client is available out of the box. That's about as close to universal as it gets these days outside of a web app.
That they would also have TLS/SSL is trivially true, but unless one likes typing/scripting something like this:
> printf 'gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/software/\r\n' |openssl s_client -connect 168.235.111.58:1965 -ign_eof
... the fact remains that Gemini is less immediately accessible that way.
@Yretek, #clseibold - Yes, I'd like to see the fragment identifiers used to jump to headings within the document. It would also be cool to implement the highlighting scheme discussed at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Text_fragments. I've got a demo page at gemini://jdcard,com/link-to-text-fragments.gmi. Of course it would all depend on clients implementing these features. I think these were discussed and rejected already in the early planning for Gemini.
@clseibold I suspect we're talking right past each other.
My point in bringing up MS-DOS wasn't to slip obsolete operating systems into this discussion when they shouldn't be used anyway. Talking about Windows systems past their expiration date isn't germane.
There is no apples-to-oranges here - I'm comparing the experience one would have looking up content without first installing additional software, presupposing nothing besides . And in that case, you have the immediacy of an ssh client that is up to the task without much fanfare. That should have been evident enough from previous comments.
Cont'd...
@clseibold I said previously that I'm aware this isn't a protocol, but an application leveraging an existing one, which I can appreciate. I'll be the first to say that the authors don't make that distinction crystal clear, but it made sense to me. It "not being a real protocol" presupposes that that is what it should be, and is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps it matters to you.
> an actual fact here remains, which is that SSL and SSH have different uses and different tools surrounding them.
No need to get snarky.
And arguing against the suitability of the latter hasn't happened yet, only been stated as a matter of opinion. I don't take issue with the stated usage.
@clseibold
>You're trying to say that SSL/TLS is factually less accessible
The client they *immediately have on hand* certainly is, yes. Which is what I said.
>There are many people who would find SSH to be significantly more inaccessible than installing a program.
And many who would not. I suspect most with an interest in the smolweb fall into this category.
>HTTPS, FTPS, SMTP and POP3, XMPP, VPN, VoIP, NNTP, LDAP, IMAP, Gemini, Gopher, Misfin, etc.
All of which are protocols, which I didn't claim SuperTXT was or had to be.
>shell access, SFTP, and tunnelling connections, and that's basically it
Current usage need not dictate future usage. It's not prescriptive.
>but that doesn't make it more accessible, especially when SSH requires the use of a terminal.
I fail to see why that's a significant barrier for anyone but my grandmother when we're talking niche applications and protocols.
Perhaps I've misread the demographic, but I don't think so.
>Now, you clearly misunderstood what I meant by "shell access"
Edit: You sniped this in *after* you told me to stop talking to you? I'd be fine if you were only clarifying (guilty!), but shooting more that might merit a response at me when I'm trying to be kind and give you space is uncalled for.
@clseibold
> The point of saying that is that SuperTXT should not be considered a protocol.
When did anyone, especially myself, say otherwise?
That SSH is a handy way to access it is what I'm considering interesting.
@clseibold Again insisting on having that install option.
My claim from the get-go (literally look up at the top of the thread if you don't believe me) was about default configurations and *nothing else*.
Glory.
@clseibold You know, I think we can do better than this. It's not a very productive conversation as we're currently pursuing it.
You okay with calling it a mutual misunderstanding and having a nice rest of the day?
@clseibold *sigh*
There is no intentional claim about TLS proper. That's silly. My whole intent was to say that fetching a Gemini page with the one tool you've certainly got out of the box that can talk successfully to the server is bound to be less fun than:
> ssh supertxt.net
If that was unclear, call it my bad if you like.
>especially when wget and curl exist.
Can either of those understand Gemini these days?
All this constant misrepresentation and bad-faith reading has been a waste of life. How unfortunate. But, the day goes on. Enjoy continuing to edit your posts when you think I won't notice.
Since the rest is just snark, I have no further comments, your honor.
alright everyone I think I've got it. I didn't expect 28 comments on this today, but I see what you both /all are saying, so thank you. I think we can all agree that it's neat but just not viable at the moment.
> Leave me the hell alone, gosh dang!
This is a group discussion, @clseibold, not a competition on who gets the most factual details right. If you don't want someone to talk to you, feel free to mute them (temporarily, if that helps).
I've given you a flair.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Sun May 19 15:06:10 2024