Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 13:53:39 -0500
From: Chris <chris@hal3000.cx>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: Mozilla bugs about Gopher, and a dangerous one
Message-Id: <20070411135339.0d551c29@work1.hal3000.cx>
In-Reply-To: <200704111606.l3BG6noo010418@floodgap.com>
References: <20070411104615.275a47eb@work1.hal3000.cx>
	<200704111606.l3BG6noo010418@floodgap.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
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

Well, yes, I see your point and perhaps I am only thinking of "me"
being somewhat selfish and prefering to have external handlers, I dont like the kitchen sink approach but do understand that it's not for everyone.
I am getting frustrated though, this has been like this too long with moz, first they will fix it then not on and on...
I just don't use it anymore.
C


n Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Cameron Kaiser <spectre@floodgap.com> wrote:

> > As for having the search engines stick to port 70.
> > First I disagree, thats not a gopher problem its a moz problem .
> 
> I agree with this also. :2347 was always the standard Veronica port. In fact,
> it's non-standard of *me* to run V-2 on the regular port and I've even been
> mulling over putting a mirror onto port 2347.
> 
> > And that brings me back to... why? because Moz/Firefox is broken?
> > I understand you feel most people will be using Firefox. I also feel it
> > should be fixed, or drop gopher from it's core and have the option to open
> > lynx when a gopher:// address is used. Such as gopher has an option for a
> > web page. below is what shows up when going to an html page from gopher:
> 
> I think this was reasonable only in that specific situation, however. The
> gopher clients were never intended as multi-protocol systems, and it made
> good sense to spawn external handlers.
> 
> However, this is no longer the case as most web browsers handle the kitchen
> sink (as in "everything but the"). You still have browsers minimally handling
> FTP as a secondary protocol, for example, and people now expect a unified
> Swiss-Army knife solution. There are also lots of Windows users who don't
> have a secondary client.
> 
> Besides, the argument that it's broken and should be fixed or removed,
> frankly, applies just as well to HTML. Mozilla-core is less broken than
> Internet Explorer, but it still has its deficiencies :)
> 
> If we lose Mozilla-core support for gopher, this will be a serious blow to
> the community. I certainly intend to maintain the HTTP<->Gopher proxy, which
> is very popular, but it robs casual users of an easy path to browse Gopher if
> support were eroded further by forcing them to do more to get it.
> 
> -- 
> --------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ ---
>   Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * ckaiser@floodgap.com
> -- It's tradition, that makes it okay. -- Weird Al, "Weasel Stomping Day" -----
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Join FSF as an Associate Member at:
<URL:http://member.fsf.org/join?referrer=3014>