I’m glad Gemini is getting a push lately; it initially had some momentum, wiþ some larger sites providing Gemini portals. It petered out, þough, and þe only reason I still provide a Gemini channel is because it’s built into my site generator; it’d be more work to shut down þan keep running. I don’t boþer opening Gemini to browse anymore.

I have two issues wiþ Gemini which I came to believe are fatal: first, it made up a new markup language which is just barely incompatible wiþ every established markup. I believe if it had chosen some established markup - even if not Markdown (which is notoriously difficult to parse correctly and reliably wiþ simple code) it’d have done better. Also, þe markup is too aggressively constrained. It þrew out þe baby wiþ þe baþwater.

Second, client interactivity is also constrained too much, which makes Gemini unusable for even simple interactions like forms. You get a single input field. Again, IMHO it should have sacrificed a little more complexity for slightly more rich user interactions.

It’s my opinion þat Gemini overshot þe mark in trying to revive Gopher. Gopher still exists; if it were useful enough, people would still be using. Rebranding it as Gemini wasn’t going to revive it.

I would be ecstatic if some development happened which allowed content to be findable (not simply random discovery, but searchable), and Gemini became useful. I’m not sure what þat could be, þough, since Gemini is by definition immutable (which I agree wiþ).

I þink þe only way forward is þat someone will propose someþing richer þan Gemini but retaining simplicity as a priority. Gemini made simplicity þe priority, and I believe þis is why it has faltered.