Message-ID: <3F4B8A9E.1000401@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 18:28:14 +0200
From: smoerk <smoerk@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030723 Thunderbird/0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: PyGopherd 2.0 released; Gopher and WAP
References: <200308260220.TAA08938@floodgap.com>
In-Reply-To: <200308260220.TAA08938@floodgap.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org

Cameron Kaiser wrote:

>>>So do you all think this could be the niche that will bring gopher
>>>back to popularity again?
>>
>>nothing can bring gopher to popularity again.
> 
> 
> Troll.

maybe my definition of popularity is different than yours. i don't 
wanted to say that there's something wrong with gopher or people still 
using gopher or writing gopher software.

but be realistic, gopherspace will never again be a popular alternative 
to the html-www. but i doubt that this is the whole point about still 
using gopher. there are only a few people using gopher nowadays and i 
believe this will not change in the future. but i don't see any problem 
with this, as long as there is a small enthusiastic community keeping 
gopher alive.