[gopher] Re: Gopherfs and stuff

[Cameron Kaiser <spectre@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > simply because such features are weighty or unnecessary for the
> > purpose of using a gopher server. It also detracts from the
> > practicality of server software if you are, so to speak, unwilling to
> > "eat your own dog food." If you won't run it, why would anyone else?
> 
> Noone is supposed to run the gopherd. It was written for Plan 9 so it
> got some way to be integrated into the gopherspace  and because the
> protocol is easy to implement. The port of that gopherd to Linux/BSD
> was just a fun project. And the current feature change was done so I
> can use the gopherfs for simple and fast to setup file transfer.
> 
> > For many people running a gopher server alone is unrealistic, and I
> > don't offer all my services on gopher, but rather pick the ones that
> > are appropriate for each.
> 
> That is too much effort in a pure standard Apache environment and it
> opens another port. If you can do it over HTTP, why would you do it
> over Gopher?
> I am sorry, I am not a gopher enthusiast.

I don't understand why you are bothering then. It makes no sense to
release a server program no one is "supposed to run" for a protocol you
don't like, and won't support.

I'm all for more diversity in the gopher community, but your statements
don't make any sense. I'm glad you're offering the choice, but you don't
inspire much confidence in your work when there are other alternatives
that are supported by enthusiasts, who do use them, and who believe the
protocol offers certain advantages.

-- 
------------------------------------ personal: http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ --
  Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@xxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Watch out, Citizens. Marx's tomb is a communist plot. ----------------------