I get your point, though Tailscale specifically crosses a line for me in this sense:

• Using code created/maintained by businesses: ok
• Relying in infrastructure maintained by businesses: not ok

I am not that big of an enthusiast, but the way I see it, if a company goes rogue and you're using their open source code, it's just a matter of forking it (I'm thinking about Emby/Jellyfin as an example)
If you rely on their infrastructure (such as Tailscale servers) then you are at the mercy of the companies

To that end: I'd say that OP is prettt on point by suggesting Headscale, you're still "using Tailscale" in a sense, but without chaining yourself to the business

Accessing your home network that is kept inside a NAT by your ISP, without you having to acquire an online server somewhere.

Firstly, I'm not trying to start a flame war with commenters, I genuinely just disagree on something and some people are getting a little hot under the collar by it. The Linux Foundation comment I made because ultimately VC touches more than people think. Even its something that isn't directly tied to VC, that money filters through groups like LF which is a non-profit and most would argue a quite legitimate organization. The point is there really is no separation or clear line of demarcation on what is "good" funding and what is "bad" funding.

Tailscale offers way more then just wireguard. ACLs, NAT traversal etc. etc.

While some use cases can be replaced with traditional wireguard, others not.

Tailscale builds on top of the Wireguard protocol, LF builds on top of (through grants/scholarships) the Linux OS. You can't argue that it doesn't matter that LF doesn't have control over the underlying technology, but then argue that it does matter in Tailscale's cause.

You really don't though. I use wireguard myself under the same scenario without issue. You just need to use some form of dynamic DNS to mitigate the potentially changing IP. Even if you're using Tailscale you'll still need to have something running a service all the time anyways, so may as well skip the proxy.

It doesn't matter in either case. Neither of them have control over the underlying technology.

Does The Linux Foundation have complete control over Linux?

You're the one who said it, though.

Would you rather a difficult and hard to use program?

Easy to use means people will want to adopt it, and that's what VC companies want. Nobody wants to pay millions of dollars to make a program that nobody wants to use.

Question: if I setup Headscale on my network, I would have to open a port on my router to connect to it right? And also if I setup Headscale with some cloud provider, could they theoretically go and use the setup to get to my home network? I know its unlikely, I just mean if the technology is like e2e from clients to my home network, or if the cloud headscale 'centre' would be also an unguarded entry point (from the perspective of cloud admins). I hope I am clear Thanks
(btw you probably guess why I currently use Tailscale )

Not that it is a business but is a specific kind of business. VC funded startups eyeing an IPO more often than not start doing things users are not happy with. Maybe tailscale won't, but might as well be aware what kind of company they are acknowledge there is a decent chance of rugpulls

Yes I did say that. I don't understand what you're trying to communicate. TLF does not control Linux, just as Tailscale does not control WireGuard. Tailscale does control Tailscale. There's nothing wrong with using Linux and there's nothing wrong with using WireGuard. There may be something wrong with using Tailscale. I don't know how to be more clear about this.

The point is there really is no separation or clear line of demarcation on what is “good” funding and what is “bad” funding.

I understand and I disagree. A demarcation emerges from the goal of the funding and its effects. For me, one example of bad funding is funding that drives user acquisition at unsustainable prices by a firm that is also significantly controlled by the funding source. This is predominantly what VC-funding goes to. VC-funding that goes to a non-profit that the VC has no control over, where the VC can't and does not demand financial return from, is not bad funding in my books. Corporate funding doing the same thing is also not bad funding. Government funding often has the least strings attached as it does not demand direct return, and this also is not bad funding. To top that off citizens can exercise control over government funding via the democratic process, unlike corporate or VC funding, where the vast majority have zero control, and are owed no accountability by the businesses.

I think that's because both work on Android by being a VPN, and the system can't handle doing two vpns simultaneously

My problem isn't directly with the programs - my problem lies with VC funding in general. Because they will come back for their money, and the project will inevitably enshittify and shove out enthusiasts in the never-ending search for infinite money.

The solution is getting rid of VC bullshit entirely. But we all know that will never happen.

if I setup Headscale on my network, I would have to open a port on my router to connect to it right?

The way I understand it is:

I would have to open a port on my router to connect to it right?

Yes

if I setup Headscale with some cloud provider, could they theoretically go and use the setup to get to my home network?

If they are able to authorize their own node to your Headscale server, then their node gets on your network.
If they take over the Headscale node, they might also be able to access your network, either by changing Headscale's config to auth another node or perhaps if the Headscale node is part of the network, which it might be, I don't recall. But I think that's immaterial. If someone takes over the Headscale machine, they can get on your network either way.

yellow flag to me (too many ad emails)

Weird. I'm not saying you're lying, but besides the registration email, and onboarding welcome email, I can't think of any others I've received from Tailscale. In fact, I just did a search of my email client, and those were the only ones I've received.

I always knew it was too nice to stay non-shitty forever.
Guess it's time for me to pester my ISP to let me open some ports

Historically, Accel has never pushed acquisition. On the contrary, they do the opposite. Its why they VC fund over 300 companies, but you've never heard of them. That's not to say they couldn't, but they haven't ever acted in that manner previously so logically it would be safe to assume that trend continues with Tailscale. I think that's important here: its not about ability its about intent. If as a organization you give funding to another organization (even non-profits) you exercise at least some control over them as they are dependent on that money to function. This is actually a point other commenters have made in regards to Headscale. Headscale is maintained by a Tailscale employee. As they fund him personally, they can exercise some control over him as he depends on that money/employment. Again, even their comments circle back to ability vs intent. Tailscale could influence their employee, but would they? That's where a lot of the VC argument goes. Its just speculation as what a group could do, not what they would do.

I am not that big of an enthusiast, but the way I see it, if a company goes rogue and you’re using their open source code, it’s just a matter of forking it (I’m thinking about Emby/Jellyfin as an example) If you rely on their infrastructure (such as Tailscale servers) then you are at the mercy of the companies