Sounds really cool, but why would I want to use this?
I'm not at all saying it's bad, because it's actually really cool. But I'm just not sure what the point is exactly.

Thanks for describing that. Makes more sense now.
Really cool concept, I'll look into it.

I'm not sure on this either. On the one hand it's better than Gopher. On the other, how useable, really, is it? I mean. I'd rather use a modern browser that strips out tracking, ads, etcetra but lets use the majority of the sites, vs a dedicated browser for a protocol that's lightweight, but extremely limited, but is  agood concept for a limited use case on paper

@8, the other problem is that if you have a "links area" it eliminates context completely. If I read an article and then switch to a so-called "links area" I have no reference as to what the link is about in relation to the content of the article. That's why I rarely if ever use links elements lists unless I absolutely know what I'm searching for.

The thing about the links area is, that, you know... People like to label their links with the title "Here" or "Click here to view"
and that just won't work. Imagine scrolling through a list with items labeled as "Here."
There wouldn't be any way to know what you were clicking on.

@12, its not that we "can't try anything without being skeptical". We're skeptical purely because this doesn't exactly sound very useful and more of something that'd be used by people who want nostalgia.

You know #12, I can see the point of the markdown being simpler and everything. It's just that I can also write simple HTML, and if I want to give it to somebody, I don't have to go "oh hey and before you can use it you have to go and get this other program". I write up text stuff with links in HTML all the time. My pages don't get anymore complicated than:

Here's some text. Check out this >a href="foo.mp3">awesome flute solo.</a> Here's some more text. Here's <a href="bar.mp3">another flute solo</a> illustrating blah.

I keep it super simple. If there was a simpler way to write stuff like that, it would be cool because then I wouldn't have to go and correct all of my typos. But I mean, again, you can write really simple HTML. It's not really that hard, and then you can hurl it into the gaping maw of any web browser, and have it just work.

I just love the simplicity of reading and writing it. Like, no bloat, no *way to make bloat*, nothing like that. I mean, there's almost no way for a Gemini capsule to be inaccessible. The only real way is for them to have everything in Ascii graphics form, and that's harder than just writing plain text. And with links, they're all on their own line, so no "here" thing because that'd look stupid on its own line, so that encourages people to be more descriptive with links, and to use them sparingly without cluttering up text. Another way to look at Gemini is an entire network of pages in reader mode, without the need for reader mode. That's what it reminds me of. A decluttered web. And if you try it, and find it lacking, that's fine. But having a way for people to read and write content so easily should be appreciated, and not sneared at by people who Gemini could help the most. With the web, we always have to go looking for the content amid headings and headings of other stuff, frames of ads, the occational popup, all that. And yes, some websites are better than others. But with Gemini, we're put on almost an equal footing. Can sighted people use Ascii graphics? Yes, and they use it in MUDs too, much more often, and sometimes in exclusion of plain text representations altogether, like with ASCI maps and drawings of enemies and such. With Gemini, I rarely have seen any Ascii graphic that is essential to the information on the site. Can it be a web app? No. But what it does, it does very well. Also, you can't just hand someone an HTML file and have them understand it. The have to have a web browser. The fact that one is included in every operating system is something we take for granted, but they don't, even now, just support HTTP. Many support FTP, HTTPS, and one supports IPFS. So, perhaps oneday, one will support Gemini as well. Besides that, if you hand someone a Gemini file, .gmi, they're more likely to be able to read it without prior knowledge of the Gemtext markup than if you handed someone an HTML file and they didn't understand HTML. Also, yeah, try it before you cynically knock it.

Heh. Yeah, it looks like it needs .net 5.0. Haven't tried this on my windows 10 machine yet. Just the windows 7 machine. Grabbing the new .net now, so long as it doesn't complain about needing something, we should be good...
Edit: oof. .net core as well. Ads might not be tracking me across the tiny web, but Microsoft sure is. LOL!!! And this is why I should probably switch to linux.

I mean, so far I've been having trouble getting geminaut to actually show me the contents of a page.

Hi.
I want to host my own gemini server, but I can't set up agate.
Any help?