Comment by bayindirh

I re-read the thread. Yes, developing a new transport with a well defined subset of the incumbent is a lower effort and better solution for me.

On the other hand, you're still adamantly insisting that everyone says that "Gemini will and shall replace HTTP, cope, duh", while in fact nobody is saying that. Instead, we (as in the people reply to you) say that "That's a neat little protocol which does what we want for some use cases, and we use and enjoy it for the said use cases". It's just an alternative, not a replacement. Seeing it as a replacement and being actively pushed as one is your confirmation bias, again.

Let me repeat: Gemini is the best way to solve that problem for me and some others. And I want and will sustain the argument that rebuilding is a better way for some problems, even though I'm pretty against it most of the time.

BTW, I already use non-chromium browsers for a fact. I never used chromium based browsers daily, and made them default, ever.

Again for the third and last time: I and other people replying to you didn't say Gemini is a replacement to HTTP. It's a neat little protocol which does some things well and used for some use cases, which happens to my main use cases for the thingy called web.

I have no qualms with your choices with views, but to try to portray your confirmation bias as what I and others say is stuffing words to others' mouth and is an insult to people's intelligence.