I just run Home Assistant with a ZigBee network. ZigBee is just completely offline and it works great. It's a mesh network too.
For other things, I run ESPHome which is a platform built on top of ESP8266/ESP32 MCUs to make "smart devices" very easily. my "smart floodlights" are just cheap floodlights with a ESP8266 and a relay. They're connected to wi-fi and I can turn them off and on remotely, for example, to turn the outside lights when i hear a noise at night
My camera system is ESP32-CAM boards. Under $5 will give you XGA resolution at around 15fps. Wi-Fi only but it's good enough for my needs. Any camera system I get has to support offline mode. Ideally with RTSP.
Why would anyone use "bare javascript" instead of TS is beyond me.
A couple years ago some high profile libraries ditched TS and moved to bare JS because it was "holding them back". But then again, idiots developing JS libraries love to break API compatibility completely in every major release. And not like "yeah let's rename this argument because my OCD prevents me from being productive if i see this name).
No like, "let's completely rewrite the codebase and make a fundamentally different product, but call it a new version".
I'm looking at you, "React Router"
Various fucking NATION STATES have been contemplating this for decades.
And now it turns out a startup in america will do it with VC money.
What China (and before it, Japan) have tried with infinite government money, and failed, a startup will do it with VC money.
No. It's because you were figuring things out and making terrible decisions 50 years ago. None of you really knew what you were doing. You just called IBM support and had them do things for you, or did what the manual said.
The fact that systems can't be upgraded and have to run in layer after layer of emulation is proof that you did a poor job building a maintainable system. You never changed the program to run on a new system. You always had IBM to save you from doing it by having companies pay them more and more.
Yes. Definitely. Without a doubt.
The problem with these old COBOL systems is that they have decades of patches one on top of another, and very little formal testing. These systems were made in a time long before "modern good practices" were established. They work because the business requirements are straightforward and change very little. And the things they do are relatively simple. The barrier to entry is extremely high. COBOL is not taught anymore, and even if you learn COBOL on your own in Linux, in real life it won't be a Linux OS. It'll probably be several layers of proprietary IBM VM emulation, with Linux running AS/400 running AIX. And on top of that, you have whatever customizations this particular user made. You're a slave of what someone that wasn't necessarily a "wizard" decided 40 years ago.
With a more "modern" language, COBOL can make use of modern "good practices", especially automated testing and such.
the "jump frameworks every couple of years to whatever is trendy" is out of place when you are mentioning Java and C#. Both are well-established languages and have been stable for literally decades now. Java and C# (actually
The problem isn't the language, but all of the things that come around it. Using a modern language would, if anything, let you ditch the expensive IBM support contracts for mainframe hardware (and maybe switch to slightly less expensive support contracts for regular hardware)
if anything, it's more vulnerable than on-prem because on-prem very often uses "bad practices" that end up saving you.
For example, it's good practice to have DNS names for everything. Lazy sysadmins will just hardcode IPs instead
But hey, you're immune to DNS failing you if you do this...
You can't cheat the phone company.