- GUI Screenshot collection on guidebookgallery.org
- ArchiveOS - Collection of Discontinues Operating Systems
- WinWorld Operating Systems Library and Disk Image Collection
- OSDev.org Wiki
- OSDev.org Forums
- Sortix (the best6-logoed hobby OS I know of)
- BetaArchive - Abandonware and Beta Software Archive and Screenshot Collection
Entry created on 2025-11-30 Authors: steeph (349) Categories: Links (6) Operating Systems (23)
Entry created on 2025-11-28 Authors: steeph (347) Categories: CD Players (1) CD-ROM (2) Computers (19) DIY (15) Electronics (15) Music (5)
I've had an idea!
What if there was a CD player that you can carry around and that's completely battery powered so you don't have to plug it into anything to use it? You could even use it outside!
Here's my prototype. A DIY portable CD player.
Yes, it has a CD-ROM drive from a desktop computer. I wanted to build a player like that since I was about 16. Back then CD drives still had play buttons and volume controls. But I accidentally killed it by swapping ground and 12 V. When this one fell into my hands this year, I knew what to do.
File Attachments (3 files)
Film: Angela (1996) Entry created on 2025-11-28 Authors: steeph (349) Categories: Child Neglect (1) Childhood (1) Depression (1) Mental Health (2) Run Away From Home (1) Trauma (1)
This is a film about the good and the bad, child neglect, illness, wrong angels, fallen angels, faith, fear, trust, self-worth vulnerability and childhood in general. I intentionally didn't incluide sins in this list. Angels can fall for various different reasons, even bad luck. It uses a lot of christian metaphor. But I wouldn't call it religious as a whole.
Two sisters of roughly 9 and 5 years, a father who works a lot and a mother who cries a lot make up this poor family. The two children are amongst themselves most of the time. The older sister, Angela, takes the lead during everything they do together. She uses religious rituals to hold on to sanity and innocence, to banish the devil and to entice good angels to make her mother happy again. At home they encounter various chances of enriching their collection of childhood traumas. During their one-day adventure of running away after their mother is hospitalised they meet very different people for short amounts of time. In some cases you wish they had had more time to become better friends; in another case you can't believe their luck that cut their encounter short. In the end, though, they only have each other - and god, if you believe in that.
This movie plays with the feelings of the viewer. It builds up empathy quickly, then slowly destroys any good thing that may be carried by it. It pokes at your heart, pushes it around, only gently enough to keep you watching until the end.
File Attachments (16 files)
A Document-centric Web Entry created on 2024-11-01 (edited 2025-11-27) Authors: steeph (347) Categories: #100DaysToOffload (41) Search Engines (1) Web Browsers (5) Web Sites (7) World Wide Web (10) Languages used: en (248)
I've been thinking about what exactly it is that is wrong with the WWW and what to do about it. It feels like it became worse over the years. It's easy to make out individual reasons: Walled gardens, ad-centric web sites, bad mass-generated and LLM-generated content at the top of all web searches, the lack of search results from small, personal web sites without an SEO budget or the malicious will to implement all the SEO tricks for the sake of it, egoistic algorithms (that push harmful and hateful content because it makes them feel good). Thinking about how these things became the way they are is sometimes interesting and may help by teaching a lesson. But it doesn't really bring us closer to a solution. I've had a few thoughts about what does, though. It's not as complicated as I make it sound here. It's just that I needed to think about it to be sure what I even want. And that is for the web to be made of documents with hyperlinks. If it is a text document, a searchable database, a set of image, a list of things, an article with pictures and audio samples, a video file that I can download and play, a tree of links to other documents or something similar to those, then it is something for the world wide web. If it is an application, it's not a document for the web. It's impossible to draw an exact line here. But that's the general rule for me now. It's not that web apps shouldn't exist. People make them and people like using them. So that's fine. But that's not what the web was made for and not what I personally want when browsing the web. It's one thing that photo editors, t-shirt designers, CAD software, action games and all those things exist. You can use them or not. But it has become so normal that web sites are huge and require JavaScript to even load that sites started being huge and require JS even though it's not necessary to serve their purpose. And that has become normal, too, by now. A page that in essence should be a simple document often is blown up do be a collection of applications in which
What can you do?
I've came to believe that there is no route to turning the web into the web that resembles my vision of a good web. It's not even just that I don't think that I (together with similar-mimded people) can't obtain the power to force the usage of certain software or to form habits in others. I don't think it would be a sustainable way with a lasting positive effect on the web. That doesn't mean that there aren't ways to bring others to use better alternatives to walled gardens, closed networks, sites with lots of ads and only 10 % content, sites that use dark patterns and search engines of the oligopositic type. You can promote small projects, share links to useful and interesting sites, talk about how you use the web, make it normal to use a search engine that doesn't only find bloated, commercial, SEO optimised sites. You can start your own projects, enrich the market with libre and other non-commercial software, submit pages to search engines with a curated index, create good content for alternative search engines to crawl. In this entry I'd like to talk about what I do to change my own experience of the web to the better, though, not about making the web better for everybody.
What I do for now
I needed to think about web things a lot before I realised how much of my own web experience I can change by making certain choices and how viable it can be to simply not use certain services. It's not a new idea to me. I don't do Windows, I use alternative front-ends to YouTube, I've used various unconventional operating systems on PCs and phones. But in regards to the web I thought that it's not that simple. Web sites are how they are and even nice web sites link to bloated pages with megabytes of unhelpful CSS and megabytes of maliscious JavaScript. If I use a browser that is fast and doesn't do JavaScript, my web experience is worse than it is with Firefox (I prefer LibreWolf, btw). Whenever I tried Dillo, or something similar, or when I disabled JavaScript in Firefox, I didn't get along with at least some pages. It doesn't appear to be easy to simply decide to accept that some pages don't work and just go on to the next one. There surely are use cases where this is not acceptable. But for the usual uses - everyday browsing and casual research - that shouldn't be a problem considering I already accept that some pages aren't accessible because I don't want to register with them. In a sense it's my fault that I don't like how the web is today. It's me who keeps visiting web sites that are like that. And I can stop that by doing some simple changes: Disable JavaScript and use a search engine that prefers non-commercial web sites in its search results.
Really? That simple?
Don't get me wrong: I doesn't feel like an improvement to disable JavaScript entirely. There are browser extensions that let you control which pages are allowed to serve scripts and which scripts you want to execute. I've tried that, but it's complicated to get it right and frustrating because you always have to configure stuff while browsing and that never stops. But maybe it is an improvement despite not feeling like one at first. I mean, quitting to take drugs to which your brain has developed a strong chemical dependency also is often a worse experience than continuing to take them. But also often it's worth getting used to not taking them anymore. It also doesn't seem like an improvement to only use search engines with tiny indexes that rarely return with the ideal search result you hoped for. Maybe this isn't a viable choice. I think there is no search engine of that type with a large enough index to recommend it for daily use. Those projects just aren't there, yet. But that may just be one more reason to use and support them more. And since they do get rid of all the sites that do things that I don't like, it could be an improvement to get used to using them.
What does that mean in practice?
Some web sites don't have any images anymore, some web sites only load ads and recommendations, but not the actual article, modern closed-platform chat apps don't work, just as most other sites that can be called web apps, keyboard focus doesn't start at the main input field, some sites aren't readable because all their styles are missing, burrying the content between or under thousands of things that should have started out hidden or resized, on some sites certain links aren't working anymore, many audio and video players don't work because of attempts to prevent permanent file downloads and there are pretty much no ads. If you use a browser with a less than very popular rendering engine, add misaligned elements on many to almost all web sites, unreadable elements on some sites with unconventional styling and missing elements if they use unusual positioning options. If you only use a search engine that doesn't do commercial sites or whitelists desirable sites, add to that the feeling of trying out the web in 1995 unless you navigate to specific sites that you know contain what you are looking for. The web feels relatively small with a search engine like that. But even then it's huge. Maybe it's a quiestion of what you expect. If you really don't know what site you are looking for, use a universal search engine. If you have an idea where to find the information you are looking for, start at that site. It might be Wikipedia, Slashdot, Toms Hardware, an Invidious instance. The web is totally usable if you don't enter everything in the same search engine as a refrex. I thought it was great at a time where we didn't do that. And for the rest (missing content, non-working sites): Those tend to be the sites that I wanted to filter out in the first place. So the endeavour seems to work as intended.
There are also sites that I would like to read that just happen to use a CSS trick or JavaScript that isn't supported by all browsers. Those are sites that don't pay a lot of attention to accessability design guides but don't have any bad intentions. I've made sites like this myself before. This article is being posted to sites that fall in this category if you will. Feel free to contact makers of those sites to let them know that you would appreciate being able to read the pages. I know I should test a site in text browsers before publishing them. I never do. Nowadays I don't even test in any other browser than the main one that I'm using (except when using engine-specific style rules). We came to accept that it just looks the same in all browsers. That is something that web designers always wished for. And when Microsoft's browsers improved in this regard it felt like we were there. But it is also true that most users of the web use a browser with one of two/three engines (depends on where you make the cut and call it a new engine after a fork). I think it does still make sense to test a web site in different browser engines. It doesn't have to look great in a text browser (although that would be the best), but maybe Dillo and NetSurf. If you cover those two, you cover pretty much everybody and you don't even have to test the site in Firefox or Chromium.
So, what did I change? For work: Nothing. Corporate dictates what software I use for what. On my private laptop, I currently use NetSurf as my main web browser. I use LibreWolf for two purposes: Copying individual bookmarks or URLs from open tabs, and going to sites that don't work in NetSurf when I don't have the time to find an alternative solution. For chat apps I use their "native apps" although I suspect that they are all just the web apps shipped with their own browser. For social media I'm trying out different Mastodon/fediverse clients for Linux, which I wanted to do for a while anyway. For search I'm currently using various Searx/SearXNG instances. (I know, not that alternative. I don't want to ruin everything at once for me.) More than recently I deliberately navigate to a specific site instead of using a search engine and ending up on a site that I already knew. When looking for something on eBay, I don't find as many interesting things like before because the pictures are missing and I don't needlessly buy things as much now. When searching for some random information or doing some curiosity research I close many search results directly or very soom after opening them because they aren't displayed properly. So far that doesn't bother me much. I'm already used to having to close tabs again right away because of cookie banners and other popups that make it impossible to get to the content without finishing a maze and reading a bunch of things for at least a minute. Now I open and close more search results, but get my ansers anyway. On video platforms, I open the video in an external player. It's nicer to have the player of my choice with my prefered UI and my custom configuration anyway. Some sites simulaniously look worse and better at the same time. I may have to scroll a bit to the content and it is obvious that the page wasn't designed to look exactly like that. But at least I don't get any grafical animations, lots of side-loaded unrelated content or ads. For shopping my options are very narrow. I already stopped using Amazon for other reasons a while ago. It's really not as much of a hassle as people seem to think. But much more shops than I expected rely on JavaScript for purchasing or logging in nowadays. (Probably at least for a CAPTHA.) It's pretty much all, actually. According to my rule from earlier, those are apps though, and there would be better ways to implement those. So, I don't have a solution other than switching back to LibreWolf or an app on my phone when I need to buy something online. So far, I didn't actually need anything, though. For online banking, sending a message to my insurance, using the Wayback machine and I predict much more, it is the same. For some things I will try to find alternatives. For others I will realise I don't have to. For some sites that I want to consume for enternainment it's disappointing when they don't work. There are so many alternaives for entertainment in all categories. I have so many ebooks, web books, audio books, lecture recordings, podcasts, … that I would like to consume when I get the time and energy to, I really don't need whatever interesting thing I've just found or somebody has just recommended. But now that I know it's there, I don't want to miss out. So far, this has been largest part of my negative experience after switching. But I haven't been at it for long. I'm curious to see how this will go for me.
Edited in November 2025 (one year later) to add: This endeaver has not worked out for long. More and more I switched bach to LibreWolf and more and more I felt I had to use a site without wanting to look for alternatives. I also completely gave up using alternative search engines and when I started using a new PC I didn't even install any other browser than LibreWolf. I made several attempts at getting used at some of the aspects of a less complex and less commercial web experience. But it didn't stick, for the reasons you may have expected and not done the same experiment yourself. But there will be more attempts from me to get used to search engines with less commercial results. And I did get used to some things. Apart from exclusively using alternative Youube frontends and sometimes trying small search engines first, I more often in the past visit blogs, aggregators or web directories for browsing instead of social media feeds. And that is a great thing to get used to, I think.
Mice I Use For Everyday Things Entry created on 2025-11-21 Authors: steeph (349) Categories: Computers (19) Hardware (15) Mouse (4) Languages used: en (248)
I've written about my high standards of demands of a computer mouse before. But those posts have pretty much only talked about what I'm _not_ using and why. In absence of good mice, this is what I am using as pointing devices.
On laptops while travelling: Integrated touch pad or touch screen. This has nothing in common with my dream mouse. But it's there, doesn't need connecting, packing, extra batteries or space on a way too small hotel room table.
Anker A7852M. It's a vertical mouse. I use it mainly for work, for changing my hand position every now and then. It's annoying, falls over multiple times a day and doesn't really help with carpal tunnel syndrom. But it feels very nice.
Vaxee XE-S Wireless. This is a "pro gaming mouse". I'm testing it to see what you get for hundrets of Euros. I was so stupid to go for the S variant because the regular size wasn't available as wireless version. I thought being wireless would be more important than fitting my hand. It's probably not. But it's not smaller than other mice, so whatever. I'm not a gamer. So maybe I can't judge this mouse's qualities properly. But I can judge how well it fulfills the features I'm looking for in a mouse. And it's not all that good. It's reliable in scrolling and clicking. But so is every 20 € mouse when it's new. The plastic case doesn't feel better than a cheap mouse's. The paint rubs off in one spot after only a few months. The clicks sound different and are harder and softer for different mice of the same model, which makes me think the switches aren't really of such high quality. I had to clean them once to make the left one work reliably again. The scrolling wheel pretty good grip actually, but it is very soft, which I dislike. The cable is a good flexible rubber one. So using it with cable isn't a problem. But it's not as good as Razor ones. It's too small and light, I'm probably going to mod it at some point.
Logitech M-S69. My favourite mouse and the one I use most is a classical cheap Logitech ball mouse. The highpoint of standard OEM no-nonsense mice from the late 1990s. The beginning of "two buttons and a wheel but the wheel is actually the third button as well". It was labeled with all sorts of computer manufacturer names and included with ne PCs around and after the millenium change. Mine is branded Fujitsu Siemens. But that doesn't matter. What I like about is the high quality of switches compared to today's mice, the clear tactile (and audible) click when turning the scroll wheel and the slim body. If a mouse has to be too small for my hands, at least I want to be able to move it around with two fingers instead of by resting my hand on it. I think I would prefer the same mouse but with an optical sensor. But the ball isn't a problem, either. Back in the day I used to hate having to clean the mouse so often of deal with it not moving where I want to point. But with the right pad (gray cardboard) it works as well as an oprtical mouse from that time, which is as good as it ever has to.
I took pictures of fog. Entry created on 2025-11-20 Authors: steeph (349) Categories: Fields (1) Fog (1) Photos (24) Pictures (61) Wind Turbine (1)
File Attachments (2 files)
SBWG 0.13 Entry created on 2025-11-10 (edited 2025-11-18) Authors: steeph (347) Categories: Bash (31) Code (31) Computer (76) Linux (35) Projects (40) SBWG (18) Scripts (28) Software (52) Languages used: en (248) Topics: Projects → Code → Bash Scripts → SBWG (17) Projects → Web Sites (20)
Wow, has it been more than a year again without publishing a new SBWG version? Another year where I didn't have much energy for things besides work. But I finally worked on it again. It's still evolving a lot. But the list of things I still want to do is slowly becoming shorter.
SBWG 0.13.0 is a pretty stable version again. I've tested it with several sites for a while and I'm now also using it to generate this web site. You can get it from there.
Apart from the almost permanently ongoing task of cleaning up the code formatting line by line because I started out with a mess of tabs and spaces mixed in different circumstances, I find the following changes worth describing here.
File attachments: Image files are now only embedded as a thumbnail and displayed as a gallery if the file type is one of the following: image/avif, image/bmp, image/gif, image/heic, image/jp2,
image/jpeg, image/jpm, image/jpx, image/jxr, image/png, image/svg+xml, image/tiff, image/vnd.microsoft.icon, image/webp or image/x-jp2-codestream. Even though not all of them are supported by most web
browsers and there are browsers that support formats not on the list, those are the image types that I find widely supported enough to try to display their contents instead of only linking to the
original files. If a file attachment is in a subdirectory, the same sub-path is now used on the generated web site, allowing for several files of the same name to be attached to different entries. That
is something that is now possible because file attachment now not necessarily need to be named after the entry they are attached to. Their file name does not matter if the directory they are in is named
after the entry. For axample: ENTRYNAME, ENTRYNAME-files or ENTRYNAME-images
Since SBWG sometimes changes how certain features work, it is possible (as in thinkable. It's not like SBWG is used by so many sites that there has been an actual example of it.) that a web site
created for one version of SBWG is not generating as expected with a newer version of the script. That is why it is now possible to declare in a site's settings file that it may not be generated by a
SBWG script newer than a certain version. If your site uses hooks it may be a good idea to use this new feature so that you get a message when trying to use a wrong version of SBWG instead of noticing
after a possibly long generation process that everything does not look right. To activate this restriction, simply add a < sign followed by the latest version allowed to the first line of the site's
settings file. For example: #SBWG <0.13.0
Accessibility as an afterthought: For some reason I didn't many things wrong from the start when it comes to accessibility. I've always felt that design decisions are and should be subject to my personality and mood. This is why SBWG is only written for Bash (so far) and so many specialty features are the way they are. I guess I've let this policy spill out on decisions like how readable generated sites are. I've never been good with designing web pages entirely on my own. I'm better at implementing CSS than at design decisions. But this goes so far that I've created an image gallery feature (for image file attachments) with modal preview without using any JavaScript. To realise that I had to break some HTML rules and create HTML that is not viewable without a basic minimum of styling (to hide some elements). I am very very slowly drifting off that course of not caring about things like that. As a start, I've changed the layout of web sites generated with SBWG to contain their menu after the content. For a styled site there's no difference (e.g. using the default "elth" style). But in text browsers (and hopefully also screen readers) this means the entire menu with all topics and the whole tagcloud isn't displayed/read before getting to the actual content of a page. To make it easy to access the menu, there is now a "Jump to the menu" link at the top of every page. Another improvement in this regard is inclusion of image descriptions as alt attributes where descriptions are found in the meta information embedded in the image files. SBWG now looks for all sorts of tags that might hold a useful description of an image, or at least a title or keywords. Fields meant for image descriptions are preferred over others that probably only hold inferior information. This should in some cases already generate useful alt attributes. But I know that I'm going to have to actually write those image descriptions for images used on my site. It's a start. Like I said. I'm moving very very slowly on this.
Style set handling: The most recent large change has been the rewrite of everything related to fetching and embedding style sets. I made some minor compromises but simplified some parts a lot. Changes emerging from the re-write include: Style sets can be placed in different directories now. SBWG looks for the requested style sets in the web site's own styles directory as before. If it isn't there, it continues looking in the user's home directory (`~/.local/share/sbwg/styles/`), then in a global styles directory (`/usr/local/share/sbwg/styles/`), then in the styles directory relative to the script file (in case SBWG is used as a portable directory, not installed). This way styles can be provided globally, e.g. with an install script, additional or altered styles can be installed by a user for their own sites and additional or altered styles again can be limited to a single web site. And lastly a stylesheet file can be chosen by path no matter where it's localed. But this file will be its own style set. Special use case, I know. But if you happen to have a use for that feature, there you go. Style files named reset.css are no longer treated specially. It wasn't a requested feature and I never used it myself. If you use alternate styles on your site (which is unlikely enough) and there are style definitions you want to be included in all style sets, simply include them in all style sets. If you want to refrain from using redundant CSS, put that code in a separate file like before with reset.css) and create links for each style set. The result will be same as before but more self explanatory. When using alternate styles on a web site (so the user can select from them in the browser), all non-styling files from all style sets are now being used. Again this is more in line with what you would expect. Although I might change this again later because the way it used to be was more practical. There were good reasons for it. The basic minimum of styling that should be applied to a site generated by SBWG is now hardcoded. If no style whatsoever is requested, a file with those minimal rules is generated and linked on generated HTML files.
Other than that it's mostly code improvements, HTML cleanliness improvements, formatting improvements and UI/style improvements of a tiny nature. But I'm glad I have two of the larger todos - attachment changes and the style rewrite - (almost) done.
Old Cherry Keyboard Repair Entry created on 2025-09-14 (edited 2025-11-17) Authors: steeph (347) Categories: Computers (19) Electronics (15) Keyboards (10) Vintage Computing (2)
I found a Cherry G81-1000 in the scrap recently. It's one of those old 101 key models with a metal board and oldish mechanical switched. Model M fans would probably disagree. But it is comparible with an IBM Model M in many ways. Maybe it's becasue Model Ms are still produced that, from what I saw, Cherry G81-1000s are offered for more on eBay. So they do seem to be of interest to other vintage computer fans, not just me.
To test it I first had to replace the cable. I decided for a cheap, black audio cable with two 5-pin DIN plugs. I say audio cable because hat's what it was advertised as. It has no shielding at all. Anyway, just becausew they used proper shielding back then doesn't mean I need it. Because I'm not involved with the computer keyboard fan bubble I had no idea where to find the pinout on ther PCB. Web search engines were of no help. But since a stub of the original cable was still on it, I knew which colour of the original cable goes where. I then checkerd three other (a bit newer) Cherry keybards and found them to use the same colours. I tried the same pinout and it works. I'll attach a diagram just in case anybody needs to do the same thing.
The keybnoard is generally working. But typing does not feel nice and some keys stopped working after a while. From their arrangement it is pretty obvious that one trace on the board must be broken. Here starts the bigger problem. Because of the way the board is constructed, the most of the traces aren't accessible. They are covered by a metal shet from the back and the switches from the front, which are connected to the metal sheet. I know how to repair traces of a keyboard matrix on such a flexible PCB. But if I can't reach them without destroying either be PCB or the switches, that knowledge is not worth anything.
During my research on those old boards I also found out why the switches look so different from MX switches and why they feel so weird. They aren't really mechanical switches, but rather Cherry MY switches, which use indivisual membranes inside. This explains why typing on it feels so bad. I did not find a way to repait the trace, yet. But knowing now that nor cleaning nor using the switches for a while will make them feel better, it does not feel worth putting more time into this.
I initially thought it might be a good idea to design a PCB with a key matrix that replaces the original switch PCB. The new one could be populated with MX switches and thus the entire device updated to an excellent version of itself. But there are free open source PCB designs out there that replace the entire inside of the keyboard. That would be the easier route. And it would upgrade the keyboard to USB at the same time. Although the Atmega used in those could probably be programmed to use a simpler serial interface as well.
It would be nice to continuie here with "So I ordered one of those, done up the keyboard and it's now my favourite one." But I have enough unfinished and unstarted projects already. So no, not right now.