Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go
by Fnoord on Monday October 19, 2020 @06:17PM
(#24831643)
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Go yield better performance than Python?
Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go
by FridgeSeal on Monday October 19, 2020 @06:58PM
(#24831971)
Yes, by quite a decent margin.
Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go
by jdashg on Monday October 19, 2020 @12:04PM
(#24827652)
The title doesn't say that it's open source, though. (nor its license) It's specifically advertising itself based on its language, not its qualities.
Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go
by omginternets on Monday October 19, 2020 @12:07PM
(#24827684)
GitHub wasn't a dead giveaway? How about the MIT License badge on the page?
Come on, now...
I think it's safe to say that one should check these (obvious) things before posting a snarky comment. It seems to me that this is part of the HN community ethos.
Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go
by bityard on Monday October 19, 2020 @01:42PM
(#24828774)
> GitHub wasn't a dead giveaway?
There have been numerous source-available but proprietary github projects posted to HN.
Re:Crowdsec: A Fail2Ban alternative written in Go
by omginternets on Monday October 19, 2020 @01:49PM
(#24828843)
Good thing you can check the license!
This question gets posted on every single "X written in Y", and I can't help but think it's an effortless way to broadcast some strange form of superiority (namely: by showing my exasperation with Go enthusiasts, I place myself in the category of people unimpressed by Go. Bonus points for mentioning Rust or Haskell.)
This feeling is at odds with open source culture, where the ability to understand the code you're running is absolutely central. If you value Open Source, it should be pretty easy to understand how "written in language X" is a valuable piece of information.