Hacker News Viewer

Gemini, Gophers, and Fingers. Oh My Alternative Internets Beyond HTTPS

by ChrisArchitect on 5/27/2026, 5:24:25 PM

https://brennan.day/gemini-gophers-and-fingers-oh-my-alternative-internets-beyond-https/

Comments

by: sedatk

Finger was the original Twitter. We used to get updates on Quake&#x27;s development from John Carmack by fingering his email. He used to write elaborate &quot;.plan&quot; files too, no nonsense character limits were in sight yet. It was magical. It worked like this:<p><pre><code> $ finger johnc@idsoftware.com </code></pre> No retweets, no likes, no notifications, no HN frontpage, but John Carmack kept writing them, and we kept reading. Even without any amplification dynamics, it was still engaging.<p>I&#x27;ve tried the same now, 30 years after my last finger. It wasn&#x27;t even installed on Ubuntu by default. I had to install it, and expectedly:<p><pre><code> $ finger johnc@idsoftware.com finger: connect: Connection timed out</code></pre>

5/27/2026, 6:36:11 PM


by: progbits

Why is it that every gemini&#x2F;gopher discussion throws out the baby with the bathwater?<p>&gt; Chrome alone controls roughly 73% of global desktop browser market share.<p>&gt; More and more, the webdevs of the world test and develop for Chrome only.<p>&gt; It doesn&#x27;t need to be this way. https:&#x2F;&#x2F; is not the only way to connect and interface with the Internet<p>These are completely unrelated concepts! Google&#x2F;Chrome doesn&#x27;t control HTTP nor HTTPS. There is nothing wrong with the protocols, you can just make your website plaintext file if you like.

5/27/2026, 7:26:18 PM


by: akkartik

Wrt finger I want to point out <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plan.cat" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;plan.cat</a> as a nice service in this spirit.

5/27/2026, 6:26:16 PM


by: unethical_ban

I don&#x27;t knock Gemini for existing and being a neat project, but even for hobby it seems too restrictive. No cookies means no authenticated interaction with a site, no inline images means it&#x27;s less informative than a 100 year old encyclopedia.<p>Perhaps a &quot;Simple Web&quot; spec could be created to audit a site and verify its privacy and simplicity protections. Things like &quot;Cookies only for auth&quot;, &quot;No JS&quot; or &quot;low JS&quot;, &quot;No ref tracking in or out&quot;, &quot;No tracking pixels&quot;, etc.

5/27/2026, 6:11:47 PM