The rise and fall of the Gopher protocol
August 11, 2016 12:36 PM Subscribe
MINNPOST: “The team, in 36-hour sessions fueled by beer, pizza, and speed metal, finished writing Gopher in about three weeks.” ... “I remember the exact moment I knew I was no longer on the right track,” says Lindner. “It was September 9, 1993. I was invited to give a talk about Gopher at Princeton, and I had my slides all printed up on my little university-budget black-and-white foils. The person presenting before me was talking about the future of the Web, with full-color LCD projection. I said, 'I think I see where things are going.'” {article is dude-heavy in places}
This post was deleted for the following reason: Yeah, probably better to sort out the "is this too problematic to make a good post" question first and post second; revisiting this after sussing out a better framing makes sense. -- cortex
Not sure I understand what that means?
Didn't want to derail, but looks like I have. I thought it was an interesting and probably FPP-worthy article as it has substantial history of one part of the net (though through a narrow focus), but it seemed to possibly be sexist or heading that way in several places e.g. tiresome cliched references to porn, negative reference to 'woman in pumps jumping up and down and shouting' which seemed a bit off. But unsure whether to flag for possibly sexist or not - or how to - so put in the (clunky) dude-heavy thing at the end. I'll go and have a hunt in the MetaTalk archive (should have done that first) to see how to address interesting-but-possibly-problematic articles.
posted by Wordshore at 12:58 PM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Didn't want to derail, but looks like I have. I thought it was an interesting and probably FPP-worthy article as it has substantial history of one part of the net (though through a narrow focus), but it seemed to possibly be sexist or heading that way in several places e.g. tiresome cliched references to porn, negative reference to 'woman in pumps jumping up and down and shouting' which seemed a bit off. But unsure whether to flag for possibly sexist or not - or how to - so put in the (clunky) dude-heavy thing at the end. I'll go and have a hunt in the MetaTalk archive (should have done that first) to see how to address interesting-but-possibly-problematic articles.
posted by Wordshore at 12:58 PM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
« Older "Then it all went horribly wrong." | Surely this... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Not sure I understand what that means?
posted by grouse at 12:50 PM on August 11, 2016 [1 favorite]