That's pretty standard in a business life-cycle, though

I don't know where people ever got the idea that normal = acceptable. I hear this used to justify all sorts of awful crap. It was only ever normalized because users were apathetic.

And what about the Linux Foundation? They are funded through private equity. Should you consider switching away because of that?

Does The Linux Foundation have complete control over Linux?

That's not really a justifiable reason, though. The Linux Foundation provides grants and scholarships to the open source community, but they do that through private equity business. So transitively, many open source projects are funded by businesses looking to capitalize on that innovation. Do you consider that when pulling from a git repository? No, that's overbearing. Additionally Headscale is in part maintained by a Tailscale employee. That would surely create a conflict of interest given Tailscale is solely interested in generating revenue.

The problem, though, is that VC-funded projects bite off way more than they can chew from the start and have to enshittify to keep shareholders happy at that level.

Growth for the sake of growth is a fundamentally broken concept. Tailscale provides a free service that many use. They already offer a paid support tier for companies, like other certain FOSS projects do, so why not call it good there? Grow based on actual customer needs, instead of shareholder bullshit "needs" (line must go up ).

@exu @Wahots Yggdrasil, too.

It seems like the main complaint is that Tailscale is a business. And what about the Linux Foundation?

The Linux Foundation is not a business.

Just looked at NetBird, it looks suspiciously similar to Tailscale in what it does except they also got an open-source control server. They have self-hosting doc right in their web site. Looks interesting. Can't find much about the company other than it's based in Berlin and it's currently private - Wiretrustee UG.

Tailscale uses WG though, so it's fundamentally the same thing. Like you said - just do Headscale on a VPS.

Just use normal wireguard, why do you need tails or heads at all?

So, companies should not be allowed to invest in other companies? Who is allowed to invest in companies then? Only private individuals? But those individuals are apathetic, so they have to be made to? Or if they don't want to, then since other companies aren't allowed, wealthy private individuals would need to? Its not normal because its acceptable, its normal because the alternative is fantastical and unrealistic.

To the other point, does Tailscale have complete control over Wireguard? They don't control the technology behind that. They do for their control server tech and to some extent Headscale, but that's not what its built on anymore then what's built on Linux.

The businesses that fund the Linux Foundation through private equity are though, aren't they?

Sure. Do you have a point?

That’s not really a justifiable reason, though.

To you it isn't, but to some of us it is. For me the standard business cycle is not acceptable because I almost inevitably end up under the bus.

The Linux Foundation isn't a comparable example for me since it's a non-profit. As a result it isn't subject to the same market pressures for-profit businesses do, let alone VC-funded ones.

At this point, with everything I know and have experienced about the economy, politics and the world, I am trying to avoid depending on for-profit businesses as much as I can. I know how businesses operate, I know why they operate the way they do, I know what dynamics push them in the directions they go and I'm tired of being run over by the bus. If I ever form a business myself it would either be a non-profit, or a worker co-op, or both, as this will signal everyone who knows what I know what the direction of this business would be about.

Yeah, I think you missed that. Go back through and reread comments please. Thank you.

Or Wireguard on a VPS

companies should not be allowed to invest in other companies?

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying you need to be wary of companies that do because the inevitable end of that train is enshittification. Every. Single. Time.

does Tailscale have complete control over Wireguard?

Who's talking about WireGuard? We were talking about Tailscale.

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.