Many HN users can’t seem to get past some minor issues about the spec. Despite this, it’s a working protocol that has a critical mass of real world users, mostly bloggers (which is what the spec author mostly had in mind). One of my blogs on Gemini has a “like” button and it gets several clicks a week, indicating that people are indeed reading my content in Gemspace.
IIRC it can't even show images, which I see as a big issue. I'm usually a fan of alt protocols.
Nice, I have to figure out how to add that to my site.
Really? Is that actually really true that they cannot get past the spec?
Because I followed the Wikipedia article to the article on The Register. Whoever wrote Wikipedia summarized El Reg's entire article as how gemini has been critized for excluding people. 1 sentence. But that's only what the headline says, for clickbait. The actual article body paints a very different picture, including the rather subtle (by Register standards) rebuttal of that criticism by pointing out that WWW browsers and the Internet are not in an everything-is-a-nail-and-I-have-this-hammer situation.
So I wonder how true it really is that there's this wave of criticism, and how much that is rather inferred from people reading headlines and nothing else beyond them. Like the Wikipedia author did.
That said, having discovered the existence of Gemini today, I am now wondering how much of a doddle it would be to add a gemini UCSPI-TCP server (which would obviously have to sit behind something like Hoffmann's sslserver) to Bernstein publicfile. The publicfile way would of course have a separate off-line tool to turn index.gopher into index.gemini, once at content generation time instead of over and over at runtime.
Hmmm.
Stop giving me distractions, people! I'm supposed to be getting the next djbwares running on NetBSD. (-:
P.S. I have had the GOPHER server that I added to publicfile running for some time. I use it to publish a not-very-secret list of packages and source archives. It gets some quite odd requests in its logs.