|
0x01AA wrote: Antibiotics needed because of an (simple knee) operation -> Very serious recations
I can only light a candle for her. Did.
0x01AA wrote: And sorry for my aggression above
You have the right to.
My respect to you.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: So, your wife is allergic to RNA?
Absolutely not, she'd be dead already if she was.
But the RNA is encapsulated in lipids so it can survive until it can reach a cell (RNA is highly unstable), some people might be allergic to those lipids.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Much better than 99% of those vaccinated!
Hm ... where did you get that figure?
The vast majority of people I know to be vaccinated are behaving sensibly and still following other precautions. It could be better I agree, and of course, my observations might be influenced by the fact I tend to hang around with sensible people and avoid idiots like the ... oh ... was going to say "plague" but I guess that's outdated now  . I'll "avoid idiots like Covid" from now on I think
|
|
|
|
|
Reasonable and unvaccinated is an oxymoron.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's just entertainment 
|
|
|
|
|
You have no clue to how many systems are still running on mainframes.
|
|
|
|
|
I was referring to the COBOL part
|
|
|
|
|
There are computerized systems that need to permit tens of thousands — if not hundreds of thousands — of users to access it simultaneously.
Examples would be banks, airlines (for reservation systems), stock brokerages, etc.
In all of these instances, the amount of I/O bandwidth required is enormous.
Mainframes happen to be designed with this in mind since the 1960s.
The IBM/360 series (now, the Z series) had a maximum of 16 channels in its largest configurations on its biggest processors.
There were byte multiplexor channels for handling slow character-at-a-time input devices (terminals) and selector channels which talked to tape drives, disk drives, printers and such high-speed devices. The maximum speed on a selector channel used to be 16 MB/sec.
A few years ago when I checked, you could have 64 channels s(c/t)reaming at 256 MB/sec. I am sure both the number of channels and the throughput per channel have gone up since then.
Most commercial data processing requires high I/O bandwidth because the applications are I/O bound, not compute bound.
There is no point in increasing the MIPS ( million instructions per second) rate if you can’t get data in and out fast.
You can try and find out the maximum I/O throughput on your favorite PC or Unix box and see how it is dwarfed by mainframes.
I blame your lack of knowledge about these matters on the educational system.
Learning about the design of Intel processors, ARM chips, RISC chips, etc., is not learning about computer architecture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tl;dr 
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's now "object-oriented" COBOL. With storage redefinition, "records", sort, merge, embedded SQL, strong typing ... it's still ahead of some "modern" languages (and faster).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Interviewer: How much milk do these cows give?
Farmer: Which one? The Black one or the brown one?
Interviewer: Brown one.
Farmer: A couple of liters per day.
Interviewer: And the black one?
Farmer: A couple of liters per day.
Interviewer (naturally a bit flummoxed): I see. What do you give them to eat?
Farmer: Which one? Black or brown?
Interviewer: Black.
Farmer: It eats grass.
Interviewer: And the other one?
Farmer: Grass.
Interviewer (now annoyed): Why do you keep asking which one when the answers are the same?!
Farmer: Because the black one’s mine.
Interviewer: Oh, and the brown one?
Farmer: It’s also mine
|
|
|
|
|
Me too!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back in 2018 I had to add a certificate to a website hosted on an Azure App Service.
Buying a certificate, generating a key, whatever, I don't know anymore, it was a lot of work.
I'm a developer, I don't know how certificates work and I don't really want to do that kind of stuff.
A year later, in 2019, the certificate expired and I had to install a new one.
Needless to say, I went looking for alternatives to buying and installing a new certificate every year.
I found an App Service plugin that uses Let's Encrypt that should automagically refresh my free certificate every few months.
The refreshing never worked for whatever reason, so I'm still refreshing that certificate every six months, although it's just a few button clicks, so it's easier than it was.
Then at the end of 2019 I got a newsletter saying App Services could now create and refresh Let's Encrypt certificates with a single button click!
It worked and I was happy, but not all was good.
Only subdomains were supported for some reason and I still had a website that does not have a subdomain.
Yesterday, I needed to install yet another certificate on another website that also does not have a subdomain.
And then I found out App Services now supports creating and refreshing Let's Encrypt certificates for bare domains as well!
All my certificate woes are now solved with the click of a single button and I am happy! 
Azure really is a delight 
|
|
|
|
|
I just manage my - and my clients' sites - via Plesk and that (generally) has a LetsEncrypt plugin installed by default. 2 mouse clicks to setup initially, then forget about.
I agree, mucking about purchasing and installing certs was a pain. Thankfully my needs are fully met by LetsEncrypt, and it's unlikely I'll have to go through the rigmarole of more "extensive" certification again.
|
|
|
|
|
I have never really understood this certificate thing.
To me, this is just a level of unnecessary complication for everybody : the ones issuing it, the ones installing it, and the ones having to use them. I really wonder if it is worth it, all in all.
|
|
|
|
|
Something about making sure the data you send through a website is properly encrypted and unreadable to prying eyes, I don't know the specifics.
Some very smart security people have thought about it and came up with this solution.
On the other hand, JavaScript is also a widely adopted technology, so maybe certificates are just as bad except I can't really tell because I don't know half as much about certificates as I know about JavaScript.
|
|
|
|
|
God, please God, don't make me do web work. 
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I used to do desktop development (WinForms) and it had its flaws.
Updating a web app is far more easy, as are automated releases.
With a web site, you simply deploy and all your users have the newest version.
Handling secrets is far more easy, for example connection strings.
They live on a server and users simply don't have access.
And, well, those are pretty much all the pro's 
Although I love .NET (Core) and going back to .NET Framework, even the latest version, now feels archaic to me
Of course that doesn't have to be a problem anymore with WinForms being in .NET 5+.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: They live on a server and users simply don't have access.
That could be discussed about... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I hate you. You are making a good argument for maybe the tech has progressed. I need more drugs 
My wife was a web developer in the wild days... before 2000. Note pad was your friend. So... I had to deal with 404 errors, backend server weirdness. It was maddening.
But I have this app I need to develop. And it seems everything is ROARING to "let's put it on the cloud, what could go wrong?" Years ago I went through OLE/ActiveX/COM/COM+ and there might have been something else - damn Microsoft clowns.
So when I see .net times 13, azure, this that and the other... I have tools from Microsoft that won't work properly, it's a complete charlie foxtrot.
I am afraid.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
