Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

All of Gopherspace Available For Download

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the gopherspace-is-negative-space dept.

The Internet 200

An anonymous reader writes "Cory Doctorow tells us that '[i]n 2007, John Goerzen scraped every gopher site he could find (gopher was a menu-driven text-only precursor to the Web; I got my first online gig programming gopher sites). He saved 780,000 documents, totalling 40GB. Today, most of this is offline, so he's making the entire archive available as a .torrent file; the compressed data is only 15GB. Wanna host the entire history of a medium? Here's your chance!' Get yourself a piece of pre-Internet history (torrent)." Update: 04/30 00:16 GMT by T: As several readers have pointed out below, our anonymous friend probably meant to say "pre-Web," rather than "pre-Internet."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shame on Slashdot (4, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037842)

Here's your chance!' Get yourself a piece of pre-Internet history

I think Jon Postel is rolling in his grave right now.

Re:Shame on Slashdot (4, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037960)

Beat me to it. The summary should read "Get yourself a piece of pre-world wide web history," since gopher came AFTER the birth of the internet (1981) but before the widespread usage of the web (circa 1993).

Re:Shame on Slashdot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038110)

Gopher was fun, especially digging it out of the hole and sticking my carrot* into all of its orifices. They don't explode if you wrap 'em with duct tape before you give'em the ol' garden vegetable up the knothole.

* Foreskin is recommended because it is better suited to buck-toothed gnawing. A good gopher will chew a foreskin like bubble gum, chop chop!

Re:Shame on Slashdot (2, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038392)

since gopher came AFTER the birth of the internet (1981) but before the widespread usage of the web (circa 1993).

I hope you don't mean the birth of the Internet was in 1981. Or maybe you typoed 1991 (when Wikipedia says gopher was released)? I thought gopher was actually a bit older than that.

I just wish people would stop holding onto FTP like they were Charlton Heston.

Re:Shame on Slashdot (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038470)

Ooops. I should have said the internet was born in 1983. "The first TCP/IP-based wide-area network was operational by January 1, 1983 when all hosts on the ARPANET were switched over from the older NCP protocols." - wikipedia

   

Re:Shame on Slashdot (2, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038380)

Seriously. The story submitter was anonymous (probably a good thing!) but I'm really shocked that any Slashdot editor could let that line go through without comment. And spare me the "you must be new here" line -- I know perfectly well that /. editing standards can get pretty sloppy, but this is particularly egregious. Calling Gopher "pre-internet" is the kind of crap I'd expect on a mainstream news site, not from "News for Nerds."

Re:Shame on Slashdot (2, Insightful)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038476)

Really? You are shocked that a slashdot editor doesn't check and correct the stories he posts? You must be new here.

Re:Shame on Slashdot (0)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038624)

Really? You are shocked that a slashdot editor doesn't check and correct the stories he posts? You must be new here.

I don't normally get into this kind of dick-waving contest, but ... you might want to check our UIDs.

My point is that even by Slashdot standards, this is unusually bad.

Re:Shame on Slashdot (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32039070)

"You must be new here" doesn't always literally mean, "I believe you are a new user". You must have realized this. No one cares about UIDs except butthurt oldfags.

Re:Shame on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32039086)

Folks, we've hit a new didn't-RTFA low. This is the "didn't finish reading the parent's 4-sentence post before responding" baseline.

Re:Shame on Slashdot (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038654)

Someone. Please, please, PLEASE enlighten me on the difference between web and Internet. Yeah, I know they're different and it's a matter of protocols, but I've heard this for years and honestly still don't quite get it.

Re:Shame on Slashdot (1)

atomicthumbs (824207) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038834)

The Internet is a gigantic computer network. E-mail, Gopher, newsgroups, DNS, remote desktop, multiplayer games, and the Web are some applications that use the Internet. The world wide web is all the websites accessible by using an Internet browser. Some of those (Gmail, etc.) provide web-based interfaces to other Internet services.

Re:Shame on Slashdot (-1, Troll)

youn (1516637) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038664)

The internet Al Gore invented? :)

Timothy's article isn't ENTIRELY accurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32039044)

"(gopher was a menu-driven text-only precursor to the Web; I got my first online gig programming gopher sites)" - Posted by timothy on Thursday April 29, @06:16PM

I was using GOPHER SITES via WsGopher 2.0 here (a 32-bit GUI program, way, Way, WAY "back in the day", circa 1994-1995, iirc on the dates) -> http://cws.internet.com/file/11502.htm [internet.com]

APK

Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037852)

This was just all that was available in 2007. Had he done the same in 1997 it would have been quite a bit different - I'd suspect it would have been quite a bit larger then as well.

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32037868)

pffft. If he really cared about internet history he would have gone after everything on archie. That is where all the really cool kids hung out.

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (0)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037870)

Do you have any facts or figures underpinning your statements ?

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32037934)

Does TFA?

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (2, Informative)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037954)

"Do you have any facts or figures underpinning your statements ?"

That would indeed be interesting, but GP makes a reasonable assumption, akin to "There were more horse carriages out and about before the automobile." No?

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (4, Interesting)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038144)

On a regular basis? Yes. Than exist in barns today for special occasions or limited use, possibly not.

It has been indicated that more people know how to properly shoe a horse today than in the late 1800's. Lower percentage of the population, and not something they do every-day, but a larger total number of people.

I wouldn't be surprised if the total number of documents on Gopher continued to climb despite the percentage of content on Gopher decreasing rapidly. The cost to host has rapidly decreased and amount of content in general has increased significantly that the total number of items could still be higher today than in the 90's.

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038194)

Good point. A similarly unintuitive fact is that there are more slaves today than ever before in history.

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038398)

But there's probably a lot that's missing. I find it hard to believe the average pre-bloated-web-page "document" is over 50k. That's a LOT of plain-text.

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (5, Informative)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038436)

Do you have any facts or figures underpinning your statements ?

Yes.

In 1997 we had a 100Gb disk array holding the research data from our lab, all of which was available via gopher (and ftp, and the web). We moved to a 200Gb array shortly after, and then a 400Gb after that. And then 3Tb, around 2008.

Sometime around 2007 or 2008 the SunOS system that ran the gopher server died permanently and was replaced by a virtual linux server without gopher. Even without that server, I found not long ago that I was still creating .cap files -- which were gopher, as I recall, but maybe archie.

Quantitatively, online currently I have more than 15Gb of data for just 1997, all of which was gophered at the time. In 1998, another 18Gb.

So, I would say, had the gopher scraping been done in 1997 instead of 2007, the result would have been a lot more data. In fact, a few months earlier in 2007 and it might have BEEN a lot bigger.

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (0, Troll)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038820)

Why would you state your disk sizes in gigabit?

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038206)

Maybe not.
I think the growth of HD space since 1997 might ahve you thinking that 40GB isn't much. . . today it wouldn't be, in 1997? That was huge.

I don't have any figures, and wuld welcome actual numbers, but is does seem like a 'raising the bar' issue.

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (1)

Seraphim1982 (813899) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038944)

I think the growth of HD space since 1997 might have you thinking that they are the only way to store large amounts of data. You could have stored 40GB with a handful of tapes in 1997.

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038588)

Gopher was already waning pretty heavily by 97, its heyday was probably 93-95 because by late 1995 you had Windows 95 and Navigator making the GUI web very approachable.

Re:Far cry from "all of gopherspace" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038766)

Very doubtful it would have been much larger, especially with the cost of storage in '97 vs '07. Likewise, we all adopted a different mindset re: data and file sizes. I remember getting by with a 50k download limit per day on some BBSes back in the late 80s.

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32037856)

Pre-web? Yes
Pre-Internet? No

Re:Wrong (1)

Bootsy Collins (549938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037938)

Yeah, the article poster is a bit confused.

Re:Wrong (3, Informative)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037972)

To a lot of people, WWW=Internet. Us old greybeards who remember when the Internet was telnet, FTP, e-mail and Usenet know better.

Re:Wrong (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038080)

Wasn't the pre-WWW Usenet technically a separate network (like Fidonet) from the internet?

Re:Wrong (2, Informative)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038158)

IIRC Usenet wasn't a network so much as local repositories which synced. Your local Usenet server would sync up with other peer servers on a schedule, I suppose a bit like a massive distributed email system. Some Usenet sites weren't strictly Internet connected, but many used the Internet as the means to communicate with peer servers.

Re:Wrong (3, Informative)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038294)

Usenet carried posts and articles in newsgroups. Synchronization took place via abstracted mechanisms, most commonly uucp over serial modem links.

So, yes, Usenet preceded the Internet in the sense that it did not rely in IP, though both generally evolved around the same time.

But, there was a rather vibrant pre-WWW internet where the protocols of choice were smtp (mail), ftp (file transfer), and gopher and archie for repositories of places to find stuff. News could be carried via nntp (net news transfer protocol).

What some may not know was that sendmail could work over transiently connected points as well, rather like usenet. Anyone still remember bang path notation? One would address mail using the sequence of hosts required to get it from one's own to the destination, using names understood by each successive host in the sequence. One of the reasons sendmail configuration files were so horrendous was to permit relaying between networks using different host naming conventions.

Re:Wrong (2, Informative)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038524)

Ahhh the good old days.

You post a question on rec.arts.tv like, "When does the new season of TNG start?", wait for the midnight syncing between your local BBS and the rest of the nation, and then you come back tomorrow morning to learn the answer. If you're lucky. Sometimes you had to wait 2 days for a reply.

Re:Wrong (1)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32039110)

Yeah, I remember having a fast 9600bps link to another node at the place I worked.

Then, in the Web's infancy, 2400bps data connections were almost bearable for browsing. I dunno if the Web "grew up" as much as it "grew fat".

Re:Wrong (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038632)

Archie only predated the web by about 24 months and sucked by comparison, there's a reason it died off quickly.

Re:Wrong (2, Informative)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038256)

UUCP was the original method used for Usenet transfer, and was distinct from the Internet, but it was hooked up to the Internet at various locations to make contact with servers outside the local UUCP network. This was an era when email (transferred via UUCP) could take longer than snail mail to make it to its intended user (and the addresses were more like a full trip-map than just an address)

Re:Wrong (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038290)

Wasn't the pre-WWW Usenet technically a separate network (like Fidonet) from the internet?

Yep, you're right. My old greybeard memory forgot that, although I always accessed my Usenet groups via the Internet anyway.

Re:Wrong (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038582)

>>>I always accessed my Usenet groups via the Internet anyway

I used a 1 kbit/s modem (yes very slow). My messages are still archived on google groups, and I wish there was a way to erase them, because it's somewhat embarrassing to read posts from your teenage self 25 years ago (especially the typos). ;-)

Re:Wrong (1)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038698)

My messages are still archived on google groups, and I wish there was a way to erase them, because it's somewhat embarrassing to read posts from your teenage self 25 years ago (especially the typos). ;-)

"The Internet Never Forgets." Unfortunately.

There are a few things of mine in the archives I wish would go away too. At least they're mostly under nicks that aren't easily traced to me anymore.

Re:Wrong (2, Funny)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038240)

I remember when fingering the gopher was totally normal.

Your BBCode... (1)

FF8Jake (929704) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037866)

you forgot to close it.

Interesting (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037886)

I remember my first steps on the Web, and being fascinated by Gopher. I am certainly going to download this stuff, there's history here, for anyone to be kept.

Re:Interesting (3, Interesting)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038016)

I thought Gopher was okay, but not near as exciting as my first exposure to Amiga Mosaic web browser. After all, it had teh 4000-color pron. ;-) Plus exciting sites like this one: http://web.archive.org/web/19961114151757/http://scifi.com/ [archive.org] - I mean how cool is that? It's animated and colorful. :-)

Aside -

Looking at that schedule reminds me how cool Sci-Fi Channel used to be. Weekend Anime. Inside Space reports. Sci-Fi Trader. Sci-Fi Buzz. FTL Newsfeed. It was like a geek paradise for fandom. Today's channel is more akin to watching the TNT channel - ordinary and nothing special.

Oh gopher from su.se (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32037888)

Porn, lots of porn. Also, not understanding why emacs wouldn't run on a mac.

The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standards (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037890)

In a bizarre case of ineptitude, my alma mater (due to financial problems or something) announced they would charge licensing fees for the use of its implementation of the Gopher server [wikipedia.org] in February of 1993. This caused people to worry that eventually the standard and protocol itself would also be licensed. It did have other technical flaws but I think a lot of people thought Gopher could have become the internet had Beners-Lee not released a free for public use implementation of the hypertext concept [wikipedia.org] .

That move by the U of MN is a great lesson in how licensing can kill innovation. Standards should always be open and guaranteed open.

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (1)

wsanders (114993) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037964)

If Gopher might had became the Internets: Imagine all those VT-terminals that wouldn't be in landfills!

And we'd be working on Gopher-5, the Flash-killer!

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32037992)

The main things that killed Gopher were 1) no hypertext and 2) practically no support for graphics or any media other than text. Gopher started to thrive in the pre-Windows 3.1 days, when the vast majority of computers had text interfaces. Once GUIs started to spread, and the hypertext-based HTTP came out, Gopher was pretty much dead. Open licensing wouldn't have made a difference.

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (2, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038060)

That's more the fault of the clients than the protocol. There's no reason you can't serve hypertext documents over gopher, and no reason a gopher client couldn't display graphics.

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038128)

What, exactly, would be the markup for hypertext in gopher? I don't think there was one.

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (3, Informative)

cwgmpls (853876) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038176)

In gopher, everthing is either a link or text. There is no way to embed a link into a body of text -- what is now called "hypertext".

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038262)

There's no markup for hypertext in HTTP either.

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038734)

There's no markup for hypertext in HTTP either.

No markup, true, but HTTP does stand for "Hypertext Transfer Protocol." It was part of the design from the get-go.

It's kind of a shame that Apple didn't realize the potential of interlinking Hypercard stacks over a TCP/IP network. The Web may have been very different if they had - but then, it would probably be considerably less open as well.

Does anyone know why nobody added different Web protocols for other types of data? Things like images, sound, video, database access (e.g. Audio Transfer Protocol, Video Transfer Protocol, etc.)? It seems like they just shoehorned every media type (including - ugh - Flash) into "hypertext."

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (2, Funny)

blincoln (592401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038348)

I prefer to believe that Gopher failed because the world wasn't ready for the awe-inspiring virtual reality experience that was TurboGopher VR.

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (1)

lindner (257395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038926)

There is a gophervr build that runs on current hardware. let me know if you're interested...

Re:The Ultimate Lesson in Open Source and Standard (1)

lindner (257395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038424)

Yes, the whole licensing thing was a total fiasco. The interesting thing is that some people actually did pay for it. For example Schlumberger licensed gopher which they installed on oil drills in the amazon connected with VSATs. And of course without licensing we would never had been able to coerce Adam Curry wearing a Gopher T on MTV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyxIwy1bW_M [youtube.com]

Pre-internet history? (4, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037902)

The web is NOT the internet. (Though sadly it essentially has become so, nowadays.)

Re:Pre-internet history? (1)

quixote9 (999874) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037940)

yes, yes, yes. Pre-www history. Not pre-internet. (Honestly. What do they teach them in these schools?)

Re:Pre-internet history? (2, Funny)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038174)

They teach us the difference and why it no longer matters;P

Re:Pre-internet history? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038382)

They teach us the difference and why it no longer matters;P

Tell that to people using non-WWW email clients, pushing SOAP data, sshing into their servers, using Skype, video chat, P2P software, etc.

While the WWW is becoming ubiquitous, with Google and Bing as major hubs, there's a lot of stuff (including everything going via UDP) happening on the Internet that has little or nothing to do with WWW (or even http[s] for the most part).

Re:Pre-internet history? (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037942)

Why is that sad?

Re:Pre-internet history? (2, Insightful)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038010)

Because the internet is not restricted to what you can do on a handful of ports with little more than a handful of protocols. That so many technical professionals limit themselves to the "web" tends to restrict creativity.

Re:Pre-internet history? (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038224)

I suppose that's fair enough. Still, when I think about culture and the like, the web is all that really comes to mind. Even things that may happen in other protocols still end up on the web if they are more fleeting than a moment or public than a few people.

If someone told me to archive the entire internet, I'd consider the www both necessary and sufficient.

Re:Pre-internet history? (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038848)

Interesting claims, given that things like World of Warcraft, instant messenger, voip, doom, and even BitTorrent don't run over "the web" by these semantics. BitTorrent is facilitated by torrent files most frequently downloaded over the web... A lot of people clock a lot of time on the internet in ways that is not "the web."

Really is shocking to me to see so many people even on a site like slashdot clearly not understand the difference, or try to minimize it. Then again, I guess colloquially the web is tcp/ip, ssh, ftp, bittorent, dns, http and html (etc) all together so perhaps it's not so surprising.

Re:Pre-internet history? (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038960)

To put some perspective on it for non-nerds / Slashdot editors.

Port 80 and 443 are the Web ... the other 65534 ports are the Internet, where everything interesting happens.

Re:Pre-internet history? (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038516)

There has been a "webalization" process that took place, even encapsulating database connection in HTTP (special type of database driver) and all sorts of other protocols. Further more, a tendency to use port 80 has also prevailed even when not using HTTP. Last time I checked, Skype uses port 80 by default to listen on the local machine.

One of the logical explanation I see which might have caused this: It all started to occur when corporations started to tighten their security, installing firewalls and starting to block ports and access to subnets which did not even use the reserved IP (10.X.X.X, 172.16.X.X-172.31.X.X ,192.168.X.X) space back then but real non reserved for LAN internet IP ;-)

Re:Pre-internet history? (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038530)

Maybe, but isn't the 'web' basically like a turing machine that can emulate everything else if need be?

Re:Pre-internet history? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038166)

The web is NOT the internet. (Though sadly it essentially has become so, nowadays.)

Hardly. Most traffic is bittorrent and email (mostly spam).

Re:Pre-internet history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038710)

The web is NOT the internet. (Though sadly it essentially has become so, nowadays.)

You say this in reply to an article which links directly to a BitTorrent file?

Gopher isn't dead. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32037906)

http://www.tekeeze.com/geeky/7-fun-sites-you-can-only-find-on-the-gopher-internet/

Includes things like Twitpher (which might not be working right now) Twitter for Gopher.

Firefox (others?) supports gopher://

Re:Gopher isn't dead. (1)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038618)

Sigh...

This website lets you play with "fortune," an old Linux app

Fortune goes back much farther than Linux.
It's not on my Mac OS X machine, Wikipedia's page says:

A fortune program first appeared in Version 7 Unix. The most common version on modern systems is the BSD fortune, originally written by Ken Arnold.

Gopher (5, Funny)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037920)

So does this mean we're getting 6 more weeks of winter or not?

Re:Gopher (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038062)

LOL. That would be a groundhog.

Re:Gopher (4, Insightful)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038182)

So does this mean we're getting 6 more weeks of winter or not?

No, just another ten years of November.

Re:Gopher (0, Offtopic)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038292)

OH MY GOD!

Where the fuck are my mod points!!!!

Re:Gopher (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038562)

So does this mean we're getting 6 more weeks of winter or not?

No, just another ten years of November.

I believe you mean September. [wikipedia.org]

Re:Gopher (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038584)

You sir, are awesome.

Re:Gopher (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038722)

Isn't it ten more years of September, aka the September that never ended?

What a terrible Marketting line (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037922)

I can look around the room and find hundreds of pieces of pre-internet history.

Is there any other point you can try and sell me on?

Re:What a terrible Marketting line (2, Funny)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038930)

new furniture?

Not pre-internet history (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32037948)

Pre WWW history sure but GOPHER was a protocol for use on the internet.

Copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32037986)

Each page of gopher published content will be covered by copyright. Has John Goerzen obtained permission to republish and distribute this content? Does any such permission extend to those who join a torrent swarm for this?

Re:Copyright (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038324)

Does anyone give a frak?

Is Gopherspace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32037988)

a botnet or a pre-botnet?

Losers.

Thanks for playing.

Yours In History,
K. Trout

1996 bookmarks with gophers (1)

s-whs (959229) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038052)

Yes, rat infested they were. I counted a massive number of 4 gophers in my booksmarks from 1996.

"gopher://cwis.usc.edu/11/Other_Gophers_and_Information_Resources/Gophers_by_Subject/Gopher_Jewels/Istuff/fun/fun" (a list of cool resources...)

"gopher://gopher.lysator.liu.se:70/11/lysator-Science_Fiction_Archive" (I think this is where I got the Blake's 7 scrips from)

"gopher://www.library.ucsb.edu:70/11/journals/usenet" (not sure what this was about)

"gopher://wiretap.spies.com:70/11/Library/Fringe/Ufo"

I wonder if they're in the archive...

I miss Gopher (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038150)

As much as I love the more advanced technology of the modern Internet, there's a soft spot in my heart for Gopher and the Internet circa 1993. Gopher is the way I found the first MUDs I ever played, how I found and was granted access (via telnet) to a Free-net (freenet.calgary.ab.ca) which gave me my own email address and access to newsgroups. Then came the Web, and Yahoo still looked a bit like a Gopher site, and I continued to use Gopher through my provider's PPP connection until it became a niche thing.

Re:I miss Gopher (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038502)

Way back in early '94 or so gopher was a thing, that and ftp, of course. Since then I don't think I've given it a second thought. In fact, I'm having a hell of a time remember anything useful I found via gopher. I once gopher'd a complete list of internet hosts (ips.) I can't remember the list being more than a few thousand lines. That was probably the last time I use gopher.

Sweet! Vindication for Pointy-Haired Boss (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038172)

Now you really CAN download an internet, in the loosest definition. :D

(But it still won't fit on a floppy disk.)

I wonder if someday... (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038204)

...futureslashdot.future users will be futuretorrenting the history of the www when it gives way to the next iteration.

Oh and we'll all be plated in gold, because that's what happens in the future.

Index anyone? (2, Interesting)

avm (660) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038212)

Is there a plaintext index of URLs this archive includes anywhere? I'm connected via 3G and pulling a 15gig torrent isn't feasible. I'd love to wander thru some of my personal archived bookmark lists and such just to see if any of them wound up being preserved.

Compression routine (1)

mishehu (712452) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038222)

Since it's all text, I'm surprised that 40GB only compressed down to 15GB. I wonder how small it would be if he used lrzip [kolivas.org] with max settings instead... I didn't see mention of which type of compression was used in the short article.

Re:Compression routine (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038394)

Gopher can contain binary files as well. If the archive is truly complete, then it contains more than just text.

I recall finding a ROM site on gopher about 2 years ago, so if this archive is complete you'll get a complete set of Atari 2600 and Coleco ROMs free with your torrent download. (I think it had a few NES too, but it was mostly the pre-NES consoles)

Anyone remember ARCHIE servers? (1)

gjyoung (320540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038228)

And i'm not talking Jughead!

Re:Anyone remember ARCHIE servers? (3, Funny)

mtippett (110279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038286)

Sure, back when people knew the IPs of their local archie and simtel archives.

Those where the days...

Re:Anyone remember ARCHIE servers? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038522)

the dark, dark days.

I don't miss them at all.

Re:Anyone remember ARCHIE servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32038566)

I remember ARCHIE, Jughead AND Veronica... I think I also still have the uMich file repo uri memorized :D

Since the uMich repo went down sometime around 1999, I presume that huge Gopher archive isn't included in this collection? Of course, they moved it all over to http and FTP (and have since dropped those too), but hey....

I am (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038514)

I am a piece of pre-Internet history, you insensitive clod!

Gopher lives! (4, Informative)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038610)

...gopher was a menu-driven text-only precursor to the Web...

What do you mean, "was"? Gopher still works fine. There are dozens of servers out there. See quux.org [quux.org] or just install your Linux distribution's gopher package and fire it up.

Re:Gopher lives! (3, Funny)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#32038982)

Dozens of servers ought to be enough for anybody.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?