- TLS is an abomination
- Gopher is a TCP protocol (doesn't TLS use TCP too?!)
- Gopher is already a fractured ecosystem
- blah blah blah
Not one single positive/constructive response.
Gopher is dead to me in that case đ¤Śââď¸
- TLS is an abomination
- Gopher is a TCP protocol (doesn't TLS use TCP too?!)
- Gopher is already a fractured ecosystem
- blah blah blah
Not one single positive/constructive response.
Gopher is dead to me in that case đ¤Śââď¸
- TLS is an abomination
- Gopher is a TCP protocol (doesn't TLS use TCP too?!)
- Gopher is already a fractured ecosystem
- blah blah blah
Not one single positive/constructive response.
Gopher is dead to me in that case đ¤Śââď¸
It's not widely implemented in clients or daemons.
Also, lots of people are against TLS because it's too hard to implement on your own; Gopher daemons would need to depend on an external library.
If you want Gopher encrypted, the best option is to make your Gopher daemon accessible as a Tor hidden service.
Yes you would have to depend on a library for TLS but so what? That's just good reuse right?
Yes you would have to depend on a library for TLS but so what? That's just good reuse right?
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2022/10/msg00001.html
Interesting â doesnât feel hostile to me. (These people arenât native english speakers, maybe thatâs an important factor here?) Then again, I often read the OpenBSD mailing lists and those really are âsomething elseâ ⌠đ đŤ¤
Also, Hiltjo posted links to gopher://bitreich.org/0/usr/20h/phlog/2020-06-07T18-28-23-863932.md and gopher://bitreich.org/1/scm/sacc. Apparently, the Gopher server geomyidae does have native TLS support now and thereâs a couple of clients supporting it, too. I didnât test it, though. If that works, itâd be quite a bit simpler than what Solène described in her post (the one mentioned by @mckinley â which, to be fair, predates 20hâs phlog entry from 2020).
So I donât think that things are *that* bleak. đ
(Is âGopher + TLSâ still âstrictly Gopherâ? Nah. But neither is using UTF-8 in Gopher pages and a loooooooot of people do that.)
By the way, you sparked a follow-up thread:
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2022/10/msg00012.html
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2022/10/msg00001.html
Interesting â doesnât feel hostile to me. (These people arenât native english speakers, maybe thatâs an important factor here?) Then again, I often read the OpenBSD mailing lists and those really are âsomething elseâ ⌠đ đŤ¤
Also, Hiltjo posted links to gopher://bitreich.org/0/usr/20h/phlog/2020-06-07T18-28-23-863932.md and gopher://bitreich.org/1/scm/sacc. Apparently, the Gopher server geomyidae does have native TLS support now and thereâs a couple of clients supporting it, too. I didnât test it, though. If that works, itâd be quite a bit simpler than what Solène described in her post (the one mentioned by @mckinley â which, to be fair, predates 20hâs phlog entry from 2020).
So I donât think that things are *that* bleak. đ
(Is âGopher + TLSâ still âstrictly Gopherâ? Nah. But neither is using UTF-8 in Gopher pages and a loooooooot of people do that.)
By the way, you sparked a follow-up thread:
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2022/10/msg00012.html
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2022/10/msg00001.html
Interesting â doesnât feel hostile to me. (These people arenât native english speakers, maybe thatâs an important factor here?) Then again, I often read the OpenBSD mailing lists and those really are âsomething elseâ ⌠đ đŤ¤
Also, Hiltjo posted links to gopher://bitreich.org/0/usr/20h/phlog/2020-06-07T18-28-23-863932.md and gopher://bitreich.org/1/scm/sacc. Apparently, the Gopher server geomyidae does have native TLS support now and thereâs a couple of clients supporting it, too. I didnât test it, though. If that works, itâd be quite a bit simpler than what Solène described in her post (the one mentioned by @mckinley â which, to be fair, predates 20hâs phlog entry from 2020).
So I donât think that things are *that* bleak. đ
(Is âGopher + TLSâ still âstrictly Gopherâ? Nah. But neither is using UTF-8 in Gopher pages and a loooooooot of people do that.)
By the way, you sparked a follow-up thread:
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2022/10/msg00012.html
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2022/10/msg00001.html
Interesting â doesnât feel hostile to me. (These people arenât native english speakers, maybe thatâs an important factor here?) Then again, I often read the OpenBSD mailing lists and those really are âsomething elseâ ⌠đ đŤ¤
Also, Hiltjo posted links to gopher://bitreich.org/0/usr/20h/phlog/2020-06-07T18-28-23-863932.md and gopher://bitreich.org/1/scm/sacc. Apparently, the Gopher server geomyidae does have native TLS support now and thereâs a couple of clients supporting it, too. I didnât test it, though. If that works, itâd be quite a bit simpler than what Solène described in her post (the one mentioned by @mckinley â which, to be fair, predates 20hâs phlog entry from 2020).
So I donât think that things are *that* bleak. đ
(Is âGopher + TLSâ still âstrictly Gopherâ? Nah. But neither is using UTF-8 in Gopher pages and a loooooooot of people do that.)
By the way, you sparked a follow-up thread:
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2022/10/msg00012.html
The first exhibits territorialism and gatekeeping, which is by definition hostile. It's also dismissive.
The second comes clean that they are posting a rant, and rants are hostile to an idea/set of ideas.
Not hostile in the sense that they are going to show up at your house and do violence. Hostile in the sense that they've made very clear that this question is not, in their opinions, worth considering.
Personally, I've left communities that had too many people exhibiting behavior like that. Life's too short to waste time with people who act that way.
Hiltjo's response, as you note, is not hostile, and feels welcoming. It treats the question as worth answering and provides information. It'd be nice if the first two people who responded simply hadn't, and Hiltjo's response was the first.
I guess I canât understand the âsubtextâ of these messages well enough (since Iâm not a native speaker, either). đ¤ Yes, when you explain it like that, I can begin to understand.
Oh, I missed the message that starts âRANT followsâ. Only saw it just now. Hm.
Still, I suspect that âstrong opinionâ + ânot a native speakerâ is a bad combination. đ And on top of that, weâre all communicating just through text, you canât hear that persons voice nor see their face.
I guess I canât understand the âsubtextâ of these messages well enough (since Iâm not a native speaker, either). đ¤ Yes, when you explain it like that, I can begin to understand.
Oh, I missed the message that starts âRANT followsâ. Only saw it just now. Hm.
Still, I suspect that âstrong opinionâ + ânot a native speakerâ is a bad combination. đ And on top of that, weâre all communicating just through text, you canât hear that persons voice nor see their face.
I guess I canât understand the âsubtextâ of these messages well enough (since Iâm not a native speaker, either). đ¤ Yes, when you explain it like that, I can begin to understand.
Oh, I missed the message that starts âRANT followsâ. Only saw it just now. Hm.
Still, I suspect that âstrong opinionâ + ânot a native speakerâ is a bad combination. đ And on top of that, weâre all communicating just through text, you canât hear that persons voice nor see their face.
I guess I canât understand the âsubtextâ of these messages well enough (since Iâm not a native speaker, either). đ¤ Yes, when you explain it like that, I can begin to understand.
Oh, I missed the message that starts âRANT followsâ. Only saw it just now. Hm.
Still, I suspect that âstrong opinionâ + ânot a native speakerâ is a bad combination. đ And on top of that, weâre all communicating just through text, you canât hear that persons voice nor see their face.
Thatâs even in line with Mateusz wrote in the second thread:
> My subjective opinion is that any improvement over RFC 1436 is fine, as long as it answers a practical need without degrading the service for legacy implementations.
Thatâs even in line with Mateusz wrote in the second thread:
> My subjective opinion is that any improvement over RFC 1436 is fine, as long as it answers a practical need without degrading the service for legacy implementations.
Thatâs even in line with Mateusz wrote in the second thread:
> My subjective opinion is that any improvement over RFC 1436 is fine, as long as it answers a practical need without degrading the service for legacy implementations.
Thatâs even in line with Mateusz wrote in the second thread:
> My subjective opinion is that any improvement over RFC 1436 is fine, as long as it answers a practical need without degrading the service for legacy implementations.
I just read the whole mail thread and the replies didn't feel unfriendly to me at all. I wouldn't categorize them as *very* friendly either, but as just alright, maybe even decently friendly. Most of them are strict to the point, they simply don't need and want TLS in Gopher. Fair enough. The rant was introduced as such, so I just took it with a grain of salt. Checked it off as strong opinion that I don't share, okay. The one person who wrote everything in lowercase and basically in one big blob attracted my negative attention because of form. I actually first thought, this was a spam message. Unreadable to me.
Now what does that tell us? English is obviously not my mother tongue (that's probably the issue). Are Germans, @movq and myself, cold and don't have a lot of emotion? ;-) I mean, I can understand your points a little bit, @abucci, but while reading the responses I didn't feel the same, not even close. Of course, I don't want to deny you your feelings and how it came across for you. :-) The only goal is to offer some other perspective.
What I want to say, @prologic, don't take it personally. Most of them probably did not want to piss you off. I really don't see bad intentions. Don't take offense, I'm fully with @movq here, strong opinions with English as a second language had caused some unnecessary and unwanted trouble once again.
I just read the whole mail thread and the replies didn't feel unfriendly to me at all. I wouldn't categorize them as *very* friendly either, but as just alright, maybe even decently friendly. Most of them are strict to the point, they simply don't need and want TLS in Gopher. Fair enough. The rant was introduced as such, so I just took it with a grain of salt. Checked it off as strong opinion that I don't share, okay. The one person who wrote everything in lowercase and basically in one big blob attracted my negative atten
It's Bitreich's backwards-compatible standard for extensions to the Gopher protocol, including TLS.
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2020/12/msg00011.html
Itâs from two years ago.
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2020/12/msg00011.html
Itâs from two years ago.
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2020/12/msg00011.html
Itâs from two years ago.
https://lists.debian.org/gopher-project/2020/12/msg00011.html
Itâs from two years ago.