[ih] "How Gopher Nearly Won the Internet" Re: The Rise and Fall of the Gopher Protocol

[John Day]

It is reasonably clear that there are roughly 6 operations that can be performed remotely: create/delete, read/write, and start/stop.  Hence, one could get by with one application protocol using different “object models.” IOW, what is different about application protocols are the models they are applied to more than the protocol itself.

Was the advantage of the web (and I think it probably was) that it was more easily adapted to that than Gopher and WAIS?  Were the object models too deeply embedded in the protocols to make them easily adaptable?  Or was it that someone wrote a browser for the web, rather than Gopher or WAIS?  

(I am guessing that it was, and also to Jack’s point in the other email that the web worked at a finer granularity than Gopher.)

Take care,
John

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 21:49, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
> 
>> ​Provocative quote in big letters:  “If it weren't for Gopher, the web
>> probably would have died.” ​
> 
> Nice try.
> 
> Gopher was pretty cool for the early 1990s, but even if it hadn't had
> a self-inflicted fatal wound when U of Minn wanted license fees, the
> web would have won anyway.
> 
> When I wrote Internet for Dummies in 1993, I had roughly equal sized
> chapters on Gopher, WWW, and WAIS.  At the time I thought WAIS was the
> future, because full text search was so powerful.
> 
> I was right about search being powerful (see Google) but what I didn't
> realize was that the web was general enough that it would absorb the
> links from Gopher, the search from WAIS, the software archives from
> FTP, and everything else.
> 
> R's,
> John
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.