DOS ain't dead

Hi all! a couple of months ago I was overtaken by something, perhaps the same as Archimedes thousands of years ago. Now I'll tell you what I'm talking about.

Everyone remembers the “cult of the home pages” in the 90s and early 00s, for about thirty years there was a fashion for them. later it all disappeared somewhere, the Internet shut down, people went to social networks, where the same memes and videos circulate in circles. there is nothing new. I did a little research and came to a specific conclusion: it has become too difficult for people to do this.

if earlier you registered on a hosting, where you simply added information about yourself and posts (like here, or somewhere on larger parties like a live journal), there were also forums, but people stopped going to the forums, although it’s strange, why? Information on the forum lasts a long time and can always be found. information on social networks lasts for a maximum of 3 days, then it is almost impossible to find it. Most people are absent-minded, instead of enjoying life - they write to everyone on social networks about what is happening. Instead of learning, there is googling, and instead of creation, there are wishes in the gpt chat.

So where did the home pages go? Has it become very difficult for people to create them? are the geeks gone? nerds? IT people? Is this not interesting for young people anymore?

The home page of an IT specialist can tell me a lot. he spent perhaps dozens of hours making sure his resume looked juicy, interesting, and provocative to hire him for the job.

An IT specialist who promotes himself on social networks is just a poser who, due to the number of offers he makes to others, gets some result, this is statistics. write 1000 messages to different companies with resumes of the same content, and someone will take the bait. but this is spam and ignorance! although it may be effective, I won’t argue here.

geeks, as a subspecies of a very literate person, still exist and create, their creations are high-quality and beautiful and unique in their own way, but rarely anyone sees this, because a mere mortal does not know what BBS Telnet Gopher or WEB 1.0 is and does not know how to read in other places, which are not social networks.

nerds make their crafts, often post them on GitHub and similar sites to show off their “IT” skills, but what these kind of specialists do is rarely noticeable among the dregs and dirt from modern hipster languages, on dozens of frameworks to at least install something like this on the server it is necessary that the stars in the sky form into the thirteenth sign of the zodiac, no less. but beautiful code is rarely written, and it is dying out as a species, because the modern world needs speed. is it necessary? when will we start talking about optimization?

Most modern software code for creating personal pages is no good. someone will say - there is WordPress! but this is in comparison when you want to dig up a 4 square meter vegetable garden for an onion - you take an excavator. so-so example.

If you use something to write a couple of lines or pages about yourself, then this “something” should not exceed the size of the content, I thought, and decided to create a universal tool that would help with this. and I wrote http://old.net.eu.org/ hamster. HamsterCMS is the simplest engine for creating home pages, single-page websites, and even multi-page websites.



Browser LINKS



Admin panel under DOS (the visual editor is not displayed, but clear text is then visible on the page relative to the specified styles).
An English version is available for download on the website

wysiwyg editor works in browsers from 99 (IE5 and newer)


The engine is suitable for geeks, nerds, IT specialists, ordinary users, and even schoolchildren. it's easy to understand. The code is three small scripts written into a template. in my case, the template is made in HTML 3.2 and works under DOS, Windows 3.11, and on very old browsers. Moreover, it works equally well with modern browsers.

You can also make it up with modern HTML5 templates with bootstrap and other show-offs, as you please.

the admin panel is a visual editor (only 4 kilobytes? a visual editor?), yes! it is small and works both in text (under DOS) and in visual (under Windows, and other modern and not so modern operating systems).


what about schoolchildren? will a student be able to layout a template and create a page, and how difficult is it?

I calculated how many body movements needed to be made to make up the template. I got ten)))

created an empty php file in the editor -1

copied and pasted the template into a new file - 2

selected-copied-pasted the first part of the script, the second, the third (all as in the instructions), -5

saved the file on the computer - 6

connected to FTP server - 8

copied the file to the hosting - 9

opened the link to see what happened - 10

I think that getting a grade in computer science would be a better recipe than getting involved with all sorts of frameworks on GitHub, whose authors most likely only themselves can use it, for average minds IMHO it’s too difficult. the script should be simple and perform clearly its functions, and not be so bloated and complex that it would be impossible to approach it.

I'm for simplicity.

Get ready for hamsterization!

\\ You may consider this PR and advertising material, but my goal was to make this world a little simpler, and to interest young people in creating with this simplicity.

I apologize for my English. I'm try to.

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

> \\ You may consider this PR and advertising material, but my goal was to
> make this world a little simpler, and to interest young people in creating
> with this simplicity.

It's all good, your ad is relevant to DOS after all.

As for me, I create my main web pages (pushbx.org landing page and my website) using the Halibut documentation preparation system, which is intended for software manuals but works in a pinch for very simple webpages. I do also use it for my long form manuals and indeed the HTML format of these manuals is the canonical reference.

My blog runs in a dokuwiki. It's a little unwieldy to install but it provides easier and more flexible formatting, as well as including a little comment thread for every blog post.

As for DOS I do regularly, up to once weekly, actually prepare a blog post on the HP 95LX using its builtin editor. I do edit it on my Debian Linux desktop machine though, particularly to insert hyperlinks. Editing the manuals or websites usually happens in a Linux shell session, which isn't a graphical environment but isn't DOS either. I do like the terminal though.

---
l

All of my web pages at glennmcc.org and here on my home server
(including the PHP scripts), were created using the built-in editor
of DOS Arachne and then uploaded via DOS Arachne's FTP capability.

---
--
http://glennmcc.org/

> As for me, I create my main web pages (pushbx.org
> landing page and my website)
> using the
> Halibut documentation preparation system, which is intended for
> software manuals but works in a pinch for very simple webpages. I do also
> use it for my long form manuals and
> indeed the HTML format of these manuals is the canonical reference.

Your use of Halibut is interesting. I'm trying to do something similar with with documentation for my programs. Up until now, I just did plain ASCII text documentation so that a user could view and print them without any special programs needed. I originally wrote them in WordPerfect for DOS and then "printed" them to a text file. There were a few quirks, but it worked pretty well.

Now, I'm wanting to distribute the documentation in text and PDF (including hyperlinks), and possibly in HTML as well (but I'm not sure about that). I've started using MS-Word (Windows) to create the original document which can output PDF, HTML, and plain text from the same original Word source document (with the right incantations).

The problem is that it Word only creates later versions of the PDF standard. I want to ultimately generate version 1.0 PDF documents so that they can be viewed in the original Acrobat Reader for DOS (which only understands PDF version 1.0). I've found at least one PDF version converter program that claims to output PDF 1.0 documents, but I can't get the DOS PDF program to read them. I suspect it's not really generating version 1.0 compatible documents, but it could also be I don't have the Adobe software installed correctly.

I was looking at one of the PDF documents you created and it is version 1.3, so I suspect Halibut only outputs PDF version 1.3.

Does anybody know of a way to create or convert PDF version 1.0 documents? All I need is plain text and hyperlinks, which PDF version 1.0 supports just fine.

> All of my web pages at glennmcc.org and here on my home server
> (including the PHP scripts), were created using the built-in editor
> of DOS Arachne and then uploaded via DOS Arachne's FTP capability.

Cute When reading about Hamster, I wondered why it requires ancient MSIE or newer browsers. None of that is available in DOS.

I mean DOS people really are a bit special, so I rather would have expected something like a simple markup language and a converter to HTML, possibly similar to what ECM uses?

Alas there are very few DOS browsers with Javascript, so possibilities for interactive, maybe wysiwyg, HTML editing online are very limited.

Maybe a HTML mode for one of the more powerful DOS editors would be an option? How about one for EMACS for DOS, for example?

My own embarassingly ancient webpage has been built with simple shell scripts to copy paste things which are the same on each page together with the actual content of each page, to compile static HTML without the need for any server side scripting. I think the scripts also were able to highlight the current page in the HTML snippet for navigation and things like that, but certainly nothing fancy at all. Yet it was okay for the time and the resulting webpage was wonderfully lightweight.

Today I am extremely annoyed by how much RAM browsers like Chrome and Firefox consume, often multiple gigabytes when you have a number of tabs open. While browsers like Falkon, Dillo, Arachne, Links, eLinks, Lynx etc. pp. have serious problems working with quite a few "modern" websites.

I mean it was possible to browse the web with Netscape with only dozens of megabytes of RAM. Do browser designers no longer care about hardware? Or have the websites themselves really become so horribly complex?

---
FreeDOS / DOSEMU2 / ...

Just as an FYI, Adobe Acrobat for DOS comes with several PDF 1.0 documents that I am able to view with the reader, so I'm pretty sure it's not a bad installation of the software. I'm 99% sure the converter is not creating documents that are truly version 1.0.

Also, in the experiments I have discovered that the Adobe Reader does NOT work under several Virtual Machines (specifically DOSBox, DOSBox-X, Hyper-V, QEMU, vDOS, and VirtualBox). It does seem to work OK under Bochs. There may be others it does or doesn't work with as well -- I haven't tested them all. Anyway, Adobe Acrobat Reader for DOS may be a good compatibility test for Virtual Machines.

> > All of my web pages at glennmcc.org and here on my home server
> > (including the PHP scripts), were created using the built-in editor
> > of DOS Arachne and then uploaded via DOS Arachne's FTP capability.
>
> Cute When reading about Hamster, I wondered why it requires ancient
> MSIE or newer browsers. None of that is available in DOS.
>
> I mean DOS people really are a bit special, so I rather would have expected
> something like a simple markup language and a converter to HTML, possibly
> similar to what ECM uses?
>
> Alas there are very few DOS browsers with Javascript, so possibilities for
> interactive, maybe wysiwyg, HTML editing online are very limited.
>
> Maybe a HTML mode for one of the more powerful DOS editors would be an
> option? How about one for EMACS for DOS, for example?
>
> My own embarassingly ancient webpage has been built with simple shell
> scripts to copy paste things which are the same on each page together with
> the actual content of each page, to compile static HTML without the need
> for any server side scripting. I think the scripts also were able to
> highlight the current page in the HTML snippet for navigation and things
> like that, but certainly nothing fancy at all. Yet it was okay for the time
> and the resulting webpage was wonderfully lightweight.
>
> Today I am extremely annoyed by how much RAM browsers like Chrome and
> Firefox consume, often multiple gigabytes when you have a number of tabs
> open. While browsers like Falkon, Dillo, Arachne, Links, eLinks, Lynx etc.
> pp. have serious problems working with quite a few "modern" websites.
>
> I mean it was possible to browse the web with Netscape with only dozens of
> megabytes of RAM. Do browser designers no longer care about hardware? Or
> have the websites themselves really become so horribly complex?


as you may have noticed, I posted a screenshot of a working editor for DOS, unfortunately, Javascript does not work in DOS, and DOS users are forced to edit the text by adding tags. but if you consider that there are not many of them, bold underline italics title picture link - what else is needed on the page? in general, the text will be formatted relative to the styles on the page, this is also important. many people do not use images on pages and blogs, I can’t say that this is ascetic, because anyway, the main thing on a site is text information, and only then everything else. There are few browsers for DOS, but they exist and they work. this is the main thing. As you may have noticed, I have posted several simple templates on the site that are ready and can be used. some don't work under DOS because there are a lot of layers, and Link doesn't like layers. but you can make your own, no problem. in the future I am planning more interesting templates, I will improve the script a little, there is no limit to perfection, right? ))

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

> Now, I'm wanting to distribute the documentation in text and PDF (including
> hyperlinks), and possibly in HTML as well (but I'm not sure about that).
> I've started using MS-Word (Windows) to create the original document which
> can output PDF, HTML, and plain text from the same original Word source
> document (with the right incantations).

Why do you want PDF at all?

> The problem is that it Word only creates later versions of the PDF
> standard. I want to ultimately generate version 1.0 PDF documents so that
> they can be viewed in the original Acrobat Reader for DOS (which only
> understands PDF version 1.0). I've found at least one PDF version
> converter program that claims to output PDF 1.0 documents, but I can't get
> the DOS PDF program to read them. I suspect it's not really generating
> version 1.0 compatible documents, but it could also be I don't have the
> Adobe software installed correctly.

What's the name of this converter?

> I was looking at one of the PDF documents you created and it is version
> 1.3, so I suspect Halibut only outputs PDF version 1.3.

Indeed. Halibut always creates PDF version 1.3 files. (see bk_pdf.c#l686)

> Does anybody know of a way to create or convert PDF version 1.0 documents?

You can create PDF version 1.0 files with a text editor. Yes, it's possible, but no fun. Details can be found in this series of articles: Make your own PDF file – Part 1: PDF Objects and Data Types

Also here: How to create a simple PDF file

And here: Minimal PDF

The 1993 Portable Document Format Reference Manual also has a "Hello world" example on page 161 (175).

> All I need is plain text and hyperlinks, which PDF version 1.0 supports
> just fine.

Halibut is FOSS. You "just" need to strip the PDF version 1.3 features down to version 1.0.

There also is the FOSS william8000/lout: Lout Document Formatting System, which produces PDF version 1.2 files.

An overview of features added to each PDF version is at, e.g., PDF versions | The scope of each PDF version.

Examine the internal structure of a PDF file: Inspect PDF file - Free online tool - pdfux

mupdf is another PDF viewer: FLTK for DOS - Apps - XFDOS distro - Browse /Applications/Binary versions of FLTK applications at SourceForge.net

Further discussion about this idea is probably worth a separate topic.

---
Forum admin

> Also, in the experiments I have discovered that the Adobe Reader does NOT
> work under several Virtual Machines (specifically DOSBox, DOSBox-X,
> Hyper-V, QEMU, vDOS, and VirtualBox). It does seem to work OK under Bochs.
> There may be others it does or doesn't work with as well -- I haven't
> tested them all. Anyway, Adobe Acrobat Reader for DOS may be a good
> compatibility test for Virtual Machines.

Acrodos runs fine for me in VirtualBox 6.1.48 on a Linux Mint 20.2 host.

---
Forum admin

> Acrodos runs fine for me in VirtualBox 6.1.48 on a Linux Mint 20.2 host.

For me it creates a Double Fault error under VirtualBox 7.0.8 with a Windows 10 Host. It's possible it runs on some versions of Virtual Box and not others, or it could also depend on the Host, or on the version of DOS being run in the VM, or something else. With VM's there are so many variables it's difficult to isolate.

> Why do you want PDF at all?

My documentation files are quite large and I think hyperlinks will be a nice feature (it's also been requested by users). Most DOS documentation is pretty sparse and hyperlinks aren't really needed. PDF and HTML seem to be the only widely-accepted standards for documents with hyperlinks. I know there are also options for creating things like on-line help, but that's not really the same thing as documentation.

> What's the name of this converter?

It's called "PDF Version Converter" and is available at nicepdf.com/products. I've asked them about the problems I'm having through the web site with no response (which doesn't surprise me).

> Indeed. Halibut always creates PDF version 1.3 files. (see
> bk_pdf.c#l686)
>
> You can create PDF version 1.0 files with a text editor. Yes, it's
> possible, but no fun. Details can be found in this series of articles:

> ...

I know it's possible, but don't want to go there. It's also possible to create web pages with a text editor, and in fact my web site bretjohnson.us is done that way. It was a little painful, but not too bad (the site is just text and some tables, except for the donation option at the bottom). PDF is more complicated than HTML and I don't want to learn it if I don't have to. There are enough automation tools available today that I think what I'm looking for should already exist.

I've already looked at the PDF standard, and really don't want to go down the road of doing it with a text editor. For a simple, "Hello, World" level of document that may be OK, but not a complicated document. And even if I did that, if I also wanted HTML I would need to do it all over again.

I could also just give up and accept that I can't generate PDF 1.0 documents in today's world, but I really don't want to do that either. Adobe itself is the one who created the Acrobat DOS Reader, even though hardly anybody uses it any more. I know there are other ways of viewing PDF in DOS, but it should be possible to use the original software that was specifically designed to do it.

> Halibut is FOSS. You "just" need to strip the PDF version 1.3 features down
> to version 1.0.

I know it's possible, but it's not something I think I should even need to do. It should already be an option in Halibut. In addition to modifying/forking Halibut I would also need to change my method of creating source documentation which I've already done once (from WordPerfect to Word). I may need to do it again, but really don't want to. I would rather use my time to write programs instead of learning a new method of writing documentation.

> ...

> Further discussion about this idea is probably worth a separate topic.

Possibly, but I think it's also related to creating HTML documents in DOS. At a high level, PDF and HTML are sort of trying to accomplish the same goal -- allow users to view documents and jump around in them.

> > Acrodos runs fine for me in VirtualBox 6.1.48 on a Linux Mint 20.2 host.
>
> For me it creates a Double Fault error under VirtualBox 7.0.8 with a
> Windows 10 Host. It's possible it runs on some versions of Virtual Box and

No difference when doing a clean (= no config.sys & autoexec.bat) boot?
(J)EMM386 or other drivers/TSRs could be problematic.

Just in case you want to dig deeper, here is hardware part of my DOS VM.

    <Hardware>
      <CPU>
        <PAE enabled="false"/>
        <LongMode enabled="false"/>
        <HardwareVirtExLargePages enabled="false"/>
      </CPU>
      <Memory RAMSize="32"/>
      <Boot>
        <Order position="1" device="HardDisk"/>
        <Order position="2" device="Floppy"/>
        <Order position="3" device="DVD"/>
        <Order position="4" device="None"/>
      </Boot>
      <Display VRAMSize="9"/>
      <BIOS>
        <SmbiosUuidLittleEndian enabled="true"/>
      </BIOS>
      <Network>
        <Adapter slot="0" enabled="true" MACAddress="XXXXXXXXXXXX">
          <DisabledModes>
            <InternalNetwork name="intnet"/>
            <NATNetwork name="NatNetwork"/>
          </DisabledModes>
          <BridgedInterface name="wlp5s0"/>
        </Adapter>
      </Network>
      <UART>
        <Port slot="0" enabled="true" IOBase="0x3f8" IRQ="4" hostMode="Disconnected"/>
      </UART>
      <AudioAdapter controller="SB16" driver="Pulse" enabled="true" enabledOut="true"/>
      <SharedFolders>
        <SharedFolder name="SVDSHARE" hostPath="/home/robert/Shares/SVDSHARE" writable="true" autoMount="true" autoMountPoint="S"/>
      </SharedFolders>
      <Clipboard/>
      <GuestProperties>
        <GuestProperty name="/VirtualBox/HostInfo/GUI/LanguageID" value="de_DE" timestamp="1707423791337345000" flags="RDONLYGUEST"/>
      </GuestProperties>
      <StorageControllers>
        <StorageController name="Floppy" type="I82078" PortCount="1" useHostIOCache="true" Bootable="true">
          <AttachedDevice type="Floppy" hotpluggable="false" port="0" device="0">
            <Image uuid="{4de86d17-40cb-48b6-b778-19add1a81740}"/>
          </AttachedDevice>
        </StorageController>
        <StorageController name="IDE" type="PIIX4" PortCount="2" useHostIOCache="true" Bootable="true">
          <AttachedDevice passthrough="false" type="DVD" hotpluggable="false" port="1" device="0"/>
          <AttachedDevice type="HardDisk" hotpluggable="false" port="0" device="0">
            <Image uuid="{e2c5e2cd-c3aa-4532-a6aa-aa85db71a43e}"/>
          </AttachedDevice>
        </StorageController>
      </StorageControllers>
    </Hardware>

> not others, or it could also depend on the Host, or on the version of DOS
> being run in the VM, or something else. With VM's there are so many
> variables it's difficult to isolate.

Agreed.

---
Forum admin

> > Why do you want PDF at all?
>
> My documentation files are quite large and I think hyperlinks will be a
> nice feature (it's also been requested by users). Most DOS documentation
> is pretty sparse and hyperlinks aren't really needed. PDF and HTML seem to
> be the only widely-accepted standards for documents with hyperlinks. I
> know there are also options for creating things like on-line help, but
> that's not really the same thing as documentation.

Thanks for explaining.

> > What's the name of this converter?
>
> It's called "PDF Version Converter" and is available at
> nicepdf.com/products. I've
> asked them about the problems I'm having through the web site with no
> response (which doesn't surprise me).

Ok

> > Indeed. Halibut always creates PDF version 1.3 files. (see
> >
> bk_pdf.c#l686)
> >
> > You can create PDF version 1.0 files with a text editor. Yes, it's
> > possible, but no fun. Details can be found in this series of articles:
>
> > ...
>
> I know it's possible, but don't want to go there. It's also possible to
> create web pages with a text editor, and in fact my web site
> bretjohnson.us is done that way. It was
> a little painful, but not too bad (the site is just text and some tables,
> except for the donation option at the bottom). PDF is more complicated
> than HTML and I don't want to learn it if I don't have to. There are
> enough automation tools available today that I think what I'm looking for
> should already exist.
>
> I've already looked at the PDF standard, and really don't want to go down
> the road of doing it with a text editor. For a simple, "Hello, World"
> level of document that may be OK, but not a complicated document. And even
> if I did that, if I also wanted HTML I would need to do it all over again.

Point taken. To be honest, I expected such answer from you, but I wrote my reply having all other readers of this forum in mind.

> I could also just give up and accept that I can't generate PDF 1.0
> documents in today's world, but I really don't want to do that either.
> Adobe itself is the one who created the Acrobat DOS Reader, even though
> hardly anybody uses it any more. I know there are other ways of viewing
> PDF in DOS, but it should be possible to use the original software that was
> specifically designed to do it.

"it should"

> > Halibut is FOSS. You "just" need to strip the PDF version 1.3 features
> down
> > to version 1.0.
>
> I know it's possible, but it's not something I think I should even need to
> do. It should already be an option in Halibut. In addition to

"it should"



By saying "it should", the world doesn't change. It only changes by doing.

> modifying/forking Halibut I would also need to change my method of creating
> source documentation which I've already done once (from WordPerfect to
> Word). I may need to do it again, but really don't want to. I would
> rather use my time to write programs instead of learning a new method of
> writing documentation.

I totally understand.

> > Further discussion about this idea is probably worth a separate topic.
>
> Possibly, but I think it's also related to creating HTML documents in DOS.
> At a high level, PDF and HTML are sort of trying to accomplish the same
> goal -- allow users to view documents and jump around in them.

I just meant, we should not hijack turboblack's announce thread for further discussion on the topic of creating PDF-1.0 documents.

---
Forum admin

> Just as an FYI, Adobe Acrobat for DOS comes with several PDF 1.0 documents
> that I am able to view with the reader, so I'm pretty sure it's not a bad
> installation of the software. I'm 99% sure the converter is not creating
> documents that are truly version 1.0.
>

I can confirm that. I didn't find any converter that can strip down PDFs to 1.0. The ones that come with GhostScript or use GhostScript in background usually target 1.2 as the lowest version. I haven't had any luck with generating or converting PDF 1.0 that Adobe Reader 1.0 would read.

> Also, in the experiments I have discovered that the Adobe Reader does NOT
> work under several Virtual Machines (specifically DOSBox, DOSBox-X,
> Hyper-V, QEMU, vDOS, and VirtualBox). It does seem to work OK under Bochs.
> There may be others it does or doesn't work with as well -- I haven't
> tested them all. Anyway, Adobe Acrobat Reader for DOS may be a good
> compatibility test for Virtual Machines.

I'm pretty sure I ran Acrobat Reader under multiple VMs.

I just tested it out and this is Acrobat Reader running in vanilla DOSBox 0.74.3 without any patches in VESA 1024x768 resolution:
https://i.imgur.com/gnPsqd7.png

> I just meant, we should not hijack turboblack's announce thread for further
> discussion on the topic of creating PDF-1.0 documents.

Sorry. I'm guilty too. :) I'll get back to the topic in my next post. :)

> Everyone remembers the “cult of the home pages” in the 90s and early
> 00s, for about thirty years there was a fashion for them. later it all
> disappeared somewhere, the Internet shut down, people went to social
> networks, where the same memes and videos circulate in circles. there is
> nothing new. I did a little research and came to a specific conclusion: it
> has become too difficult for people to do this.
>

Yeah, everyone had a homepage. :D I had a few. But I don't remember what I used to write them in. People were so into "just use Notepad". But that was a terrible idea for many reasons. If I remember right, I might have been using Mozilla Web Editor that was builtin into a package.

Later I used Vim on both Linux and Windows and even DOS.

I have been experimenting with porting a Discount Markdown implementation by David Parsons to DJGPP 12/13 years ago. I think I even posted a working binary somewhere. I don't have it anymore, but it should compile out of the box with very little tweaking. And it might be even simpler than halibut.

> Most modern software code for creating personal pages is no good. someone
> will say - there is WordPress! but this is in comparison when you want to
> dig up a 4 square meter vegetable garden for an onion - you take an
> excavator. so-so example.
>

Haha. That's so true. :)

> If you use something to write a couple of lines or pages about yourself,
> then this “something” should not exceed the size of the content, I
> thought, and decided to create a universal tool that would help with this.
> and I wrote http://old.net.eu.org/
> hamster. HamsterCMS is the simplest engine for creating home pages,
> single-page websites, and even multi-page websites.
>

It's cute. Might give it a chance if I had a need for one site webpage or similar.

> I'm for simplicity.
>

Always brother. :)

> > Everyone remembers the “cult of the home pages” in the 90s and early
> > 00s, for about thirty years there was a fashion for them. later it all
> > disappeared somewhere, the Internet shut down, people went to social
> > networks, where the same memes and videos circulate in circles. there is
> > nothing new. I did a little research and came to a specific conclusion:
> it
> > has become too difficult for people to do this.
> >
>
> Yeah, everyone had a homepage. :D I had a few. But I don't remember what I
> used to write them in. People were so into "just use Notepad". But that was
> a terrible idea for many reasons. If I remember right, I might have been
> using Mozilla Web Editor that was builtin into a package.
>
> Later I used Vim on both Linux and Windows and even DOS.
>
> I have been experimenting with porting a Discount Markdown implementation
> by David Parsons to DJGPP 12/13 years ago. I think I even posted a working
> binary somewhere. I don't have it anymore, but it should compile out of the
> box with very little tweaking. And it might be even simpler than halibut.
>
> > Most modern software code for creating personal pages is no good.
> someone
> > will say - there is WordPress! but this is in comparison when you want
> to
> > dig up a 4 square meter vegetable garden for an onion - you take an
> > excavator. so-so example.
> >
>
> Haha. That's so true. :)
>
> > If you use something to write a couple of lines or pages about yourself,
> > then this “something” should not exceed the size of the content, I
> > thought, and decided to create a universal tool that would help with
> this.
> > and I wrote http://old.net.eu.org/
> > hamster. HamsterCMS is the simplest engine for creating home pages,
> > single-page websites, and even multi-page websites.
> >
>
> It's cute. Might give it a chance if I had a need for one site webpage or
> similar.
>
> > I'm for simplicity.
> >
>
> Always brother. :)


win95


DOS LINKS browser

if the menu does not have long link names, then the template looks fine

https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS_table_layout


This is what the page I baked about a month ago looks like in DOS under the Links browser. looks both in DOS and in modern browsers (the tests were from Explorer 5 and newer, to be precise), the principle is simple, you copy everything to the hosting, it can work in a folder, you don’t have to put it in root. and you work! I showed what the editor looks like under DOS at the beginning of the post. you just edit your site and see it in DOS, it’s convenient.

http://old.net.eu.org/index.php?p=download.txt

on the project page there are several templates that are also compatible with DOS, and work adequately in Windows (or Linux or whatever you have)

I try to do something beautiful, minimalistic and something that would work everywhere.
https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS

I also recommend taking a look at this

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

> > Just as an FYI, Adobe Acrobat for DOS comes with several PDF 1.0
> documents
> > that I am able to view with the reader, so I'm pretty sure it's not a
> bad
> > installation of the software. I'm 99% sure the converter is not
> creating
> > documents that are truly version 1.0.
> >
>
> I can confirm that. I didn't find any converter that can strip down PDFs to
> 1.0. The ones that come with GhostScript or use GhostScript in background
> usually target 1.2 as the lowest version. I haven't had any luck with
> generating or converting PDF 1.0 that Adobe Reader 1.0 would read.
>

neither me, I think the best one is Acrobat Distiller 1.0.

> > > Just as an FYI, Adobe Acrobat for DOS comes with several PDF 1.0
> > documents
> > > that I am able to view with the reader, so I'm pretty sure it's not a
> > bad
> > > installation of the software. I'm 99% sure the converter is not
> > creating
> > > documents that are truly version 1.0.
> > >
> >
> > I can confirm that. I didn't find any converter that can strip down PDFs
> to
> > 1.0. The ones that come with GhostScript or use GhostScript in
> background
> > usually target 1.2 as the lowest version. I haven't had any luck with
> > generating or converting PDF 1.0 that Adobe Reader 1.0 would read.
> >
>
> neither me, I think the best one is Acrobat Distiller 1.0.

this thread is not about discussing Adobe products, much less PDF format, look carefully

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS the most important (probably) news. HamsterCMS now fully works under the latest versions of PHP! PHP 8.*

New templates have been delivered. Win3.11 and DOS (as promised just now) have waited for their release.

but this is not the coolest update!

Now it is possible to dress each individual page in its own template!

it’s good when you have the same template but colored differently, this way you can make the sections more beautiful.

for example: your entire site looks like the design of Win 3.11, but the files and news section have different wallpapers, it looks very cool.

how to do it: take and duplicate the same template in another folder. in it we replace the background image. All! We have a new template!

if there are no pictures but there is a background, open the file with the template, look for styles in it, and edit the colors.

for example, the PLAIN template can be colored differently and each page will look different.

adapting old templates to a new version is easy.

creating new ones is even easier. therefore, the code for all templates is now the same, and in the template it is enough to add [[CONTENTS]] where we want to place the content, and [[NAVIGATION]] where the navigation menu will be located. and that's it! you simply rip a template from the Internet and adapt it to your hamster in a few clicks! What could be simpler!

templates that are hard-coded (each page has its own button with a link) can be changed to suit you by editing the names of the pages that you need. inside the names are by default to show the functionality.

The engine itself and the templates are separated - now they are in folders.

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

> this thread is not about discussing Adobe products, much less PDF format,
> look carefully

You might try asking rr to delete the offtopic. I'm sure he will do it if you ask nicely. :)

HamsterCMS second edition (modernized) Latest https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS/releases

if you compare the previous and the first (on the website) versions, you will see a large number of changes,

such as: improved admin panel (editing text has become easier, there are more options, and saving has become more convenient, now the file address will be entered automatically)

simplified layout of HTML templates (now you don’t need to rename and paste the code inside, just create a text file in the directory includes and write it in the template in the place where it should be displayed like this [[filename.txt]] and this will be enough to create a widget, footer, or additional menu (for example with links).

if your template is hard-coded, then you can create a multi-page website, even hundreds of pages, without harming the system.

multi-template: now each page can be assigned its own personal template (there are 4 templates in the distribution to show how this works). you can have one template, but save it several times in different folders, while changing the color scheme in each template, and as a result you will have an interesting website with different lighting for each section.

support for old templates: templates from previous versions can be easily adapted to the new version in just a few clicks.

The system is still installed by simply copying it to the hosting, it works on PHP 8.* versions

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

I will be very glad if someone responds and tells me what can be added, what can be changed, this is very important to me. Thank you

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

https://github.com/turboblack/quark_theme_for_HamsterCMS

To use the template, create a quark folder in the templates folder, upload the index.html file, open the admin panel,

select the site page to edit, and specify this template in the settings below

to change the footer, edit footer.txt in the includes folder.

Using the same principle, edit about.txt and replace the information there with your own.

File with links, create and fill links.txt



I will be very grateful for the support in the form of a star - it motivates me to do something new and cool

https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS

thank you

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

> I will be very glad if someone responds and tells me what can be added,
> what can be changed, this is very important to me. Thank you

Hello again everyone.
a new free hosting based on CMS has appeared.
real web 1.0 hosting! on http!
several new templates, additional functionality out of the box (instructions on the website).

w10.host

and of course no advertising
everything is made for fans of web 1.0 technologies and old PCs.

a good half of the templates are adapted for DOS

I also inform you that the CMS has been updated and the templates have been added to the repository.
stay tuned. Write your suggestions, I'm interested in your opinion.

Thank you

https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

HamsterCMS updates and also hosting

Today there is big news - the CMS has received an interesting cosmetic update, now the “page” and “save as” menus show only the information the user needs so as not to confuse. for example it was below ./files/index for the page index it became just an index, it looks nicer and more convenient.

https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS

there is also a new template

https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS_nes_theme

a little about the template - it was created in HTML 3.2, which means it will be displayed on very old browsers from the mid-90s and, of course, under DOS

follow the updates, motivate the author with stars on Github, it inspires you to do more for you

I also remind you that hosting has appeared on this CMS which is already working and you can register using the link:

w10.host

hosting for those who love retro computers and want to administer their web page as under DOS, although it is possible from a phone and on modern browsers.

Thank you for your attention

join us

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host

> HamsterCMS updates and also hosting
>
> Today there is big news - the CMS has received an interesting cosmetic
> update, now the “page” and “save as” menus show only the
> information the user needs so as not to confuse. for example it was below
> ./files/index for the page index it became just an index, it looks nicer
> and more convenient.
>
> https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS
>
> there is also a new template
>
> https://github.com/turboblack/HamsterCMS_nes_theme
>
> a little about the template - it was created in HTML 3.2, which means it
> will be displayed on very old browsers from the mid-90s and, of course,
> under DOS
>
> follow the updates, motivate the author with stars on Github, it inspires
> you to do more for you
>
> I also remind you that hosting has appeared on this CMS which is already
> working and you can register using the link:
>
> w10.host
>
> hosting for those who love retro computers and want to administer their web
> page as under DOS, although it is possible from a phone and on modern
> browsers.
>
> Thank you for your attention
>
> join us

last update:
added the ability to make multi-page sites, or maintain a blog, while you can separately show and sign a link to each page, which means you can maintain your own hierarchy of pages, by simply editing in the admin panel.
added several new interesting templates, there is an imitation of the DOS interface, there are also templates adapted for DOS browsers

mail also works on the hosting, it can also be used under DOS

---
ie5.pp.ua // downgrade.me.eu.org // old.net.eu.org // fnd.pp.ua // w10.host