3 ms·

> Since we're talking about two different points in time that are nearly a decade apart, lets be clear about the context here. spiped didn't exist when that art

> Since we're talking about two different points in time that are nearly a decade apart, lets be clear about the context here. spiped didn't exist when that article was written (or if it did, it certainly wasn't mature). Back then fail2ban was a pretty good recommendation for the domain in question. Which was my point. That is simply not true. spiped 1.0 was released in 2011, 2 years before the article was written. And it was used in production on tarsnap's infrastructure since it is the same author. It had 4 minor releases by the time the article was written. [1] And it was in debian by the end of the year 2013. [2] [1] https://www.tarsnap.com/spiped.html https://www.tarsnap.com/spiped.html [2] https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/s/spiped/spiped_1.5.0-2_changelog https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//main/s/sp...

hnlmorg 5y ago
> > spiped didn't exist when that article was written (or if it did, it certainly wasn't mature). > it was used in production on tarsnap's infrastructure since it is the same author. It had [3 minor] releases+ by the time the article was written. And [the initial release] was in debian [unstable] by the end of the year 2013 [after the article was written]. You're not exactly making a strong case there but fine, I'll concede it did exist and had some undefined degree of maturity that we're never going to prove nor disprove. :) + it was 3 minor releases not 4. The 4th was released in April, the article in March. But in fairness to yourself there were also 2 patch releases you didn't count.