Skip to main content

GoDaddy ... not exactly convenient service options...

So a few days ago I decided to do a little research and purchase an ssl certificate for use on my production servers. This certificate will allow those servers to encrypt data back and forth between clients ensuring that Users have secure channels of communication while using the sites services. GoDaddy has three options prominently displayed on their website. The first option provides a simple certificate for a single domain name. Like, another option allows you to buy a single certificate for a multiple set of domain names, for example ",," and another options allows you to buy certificates for a wildcard of subdomains under a desired domain. For example, "*" where the "*" can be any subsite. The problem is they don't provide a combined option for multi domain and wild card, forcing you to purchase a separate certificate for each, even if you can easily use a single certificate on all of your web servers as I've designed my software to be able to do. The ideal situation for me would be to have a combined option but GoDaddy instead chooses to separate these important services into two price buckets and I'd have to buy both to get the services which isn't what I'd call customer convenience. I found it interesting that what I brought this up to the tech. that his only response was, "well our prices our lower than the competition." to which my response is that it is irrelevant to me. If you are going to lower your prices per service , don't neutralize the usefulness of the service options so that they are maximally useful to the customer only when both are purchased together. That doesn't strike as an honest business move and it is why GoDaddy gets a call out on this act in this blog. I am stuck with the three year certificate (as I can't even switch to the "*" option without being charged more money) but I don't know if I'll be renewing it with when the time comes.


Popular posts from this blog

Highly targeted Cpg vaccine immunotherapy for a range of cancer


This will surely go down as a seminal advance in cancer therapy. It reads like magic:

So this new approach looks for the specific proteins that are associated with a given tumors resistance to attack by the body's T cells, it then adjusts those T cells to be hyper sensitive to the specific oncogenic proteins targeted. These cells become essentially The Terminator​ T cells in the specific tumor AND have the multiplied effect of traveling along the immune pathway of spreading that the cancer many have metastasized. This is huge squared because it means you can essentially use targeting one tumor to identify and eliminate distal tumors that you many not even realize exist.

This allows the therapy for treating cancer to, for the first time; end the "wack a mole" problem that has frustrated traditional shot gun methods of treatment involving radiation and chemotherapy ...which by their nature unfortunately damage parts of the body that are not cancer laden but …

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

AgilEntity Architecture: Action Oriented Workflow

Permissions, fine grained versus management headache
The usual method for determining which users can perform a given function on a given object in a managed system, employs providing those Users with specific access rights via the use of permissions. Often these permissions are also able to be granted to collections called Groups, to which Users are added. The combination of Permissions and Groups provides the ability to provide as atomic a dissemination of rights across the User space as possible. However, this granularity comes at the price of reduced efficiency for managing the created permissions and more importantly the Groups that collect Users designated to perform sets of actions. Essentially the Groups serve as access control lists in many systems, which for the variable and often changing environment of business applications means a need to constantly update the ACL’s (groups) in order to add or remove individuals based on their ability to perform certain actions. Also, the…