Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:34:55 -0500
From: David Allen <s2mdalle@titan.vcu.edu>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: Gopher for GNOME...
Message-ID: <20010104233455.A11495@mothra>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1010103174107.19100V-100000@scn>
 <20010104000041.A17797@mothra> <87elyi1vaq.fsf@complete.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <87elyi1vaq.fsf@complete.org>;
 from jgoerzen@complete.org on Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:23:41PM -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org


On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 11:23:41PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> David Allen <s2mdalle@titan.vcu.edu> writes:
> 
> > One of the things that I noticed about it was it's directory type feel
> > - I don't use gmc much, but it reminded me of gmc, and acted as if the
> > gopher server was an extension of your local disk.  I took a different
> > approach as I was writing my client, but it was interesting to see it
> > done in this way.   
> 
> This is an *excellent* approach, if done right.  I think this is how
> gopher was meant to be done, especially if it is integrated into the
> file manager.  Konqueror does it this way, and it would be an
> excellent client if only it didn't have more bugs than Microsoft code
> XOR'd with /dev/random :-)

I like the approach, but I also have some issues with it.  Treating
gopher like an extension to a file manager program suggests the
application of gopher in no more than a souped up directory fashion,
when it can do so much more.  I don't see any reason why all of the
CGI type of applications can't be run in a gopher type of way, but how
do you represent a CGI type program on a foreign server which may take
N arbitrary input fields as just another file on your disk?  I think
the idea goes a very long way when dealing with things like Project
Gutenberg archives, software archives, and especially with things like
how UMN gopherd directory-izes mbox files.  But the more dynamic
content, veronica searches, and other such stuff doesn't really seem
appropriate to me within a file manager type setting.

In short, some people like to talk about gopher's ability to provide
all of the services that the web does.  But the way the web is put
together and used, the file manager type of interface wouldn't be all
that great for it.  If gopher evolves in that direction, I think the
file manager type way of looking at things might become less useful.

> I have screenshots.
> gopher://gopher.quux.org:70/11/Software/Gopher/screenshots

Yeah, I checked out the konqueror ones about a week ago.  Didn't know
that it supported gopher.  Pretty cool.

> Also there are some preliminary patches to mozilla based on my bug
> report there.  I haven't tried either them or the gnome client; you
> may want to appropriate some ideas from there as well :-)

I'm a bit confused as to why it is that netscape supports gopher, but
that apparently when mozilla was opened up that code didn't come with
it.  Oh well...just seems a shame that they had code that would have
fit relatively well into the framework from the start, and I guess
they're not using it.

-- 
David Allen
http://opop.nols.com/
----------------------------------------
... Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, 
and you would not have been informed.