Friendly reminder that Tailscale is VC-funded and driving towards IPO
-
Corporate VPN startup Tailscale secures $230 million CAD Series C on back of “surprising” growth
Pennarun confirmed the company had been approached by potential acquirers, but told BetaKit that the company intends to grow as a private company and work towards an initial public offering (IPO).
“Tailscale intends to remain independent and we are on a likely IPO track, although any IPO is several years out,” Pennarun said. “Meanwhile, we have an extremely efficient business model, rapid revenue acceleration, and a long runway that allows us to become profitable when needed, which means we can weather all kinds of economic storms.”
Keep that in mind as you ponder whether and when to switch to self-hosting Headscale.
Just use normal wireguard, why do you need tails or heads at all?
-
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?
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.
-
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.
The businesses that fund the Linux Foundation through private equity are though, aren't they?
-
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. 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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
Sure. Do you have a point?
Yeah, I think you missed that. Go back through and reread comments please. Thank you.
-
Tailscale uses WG though, so it's fundamentally the same thing. Like you said - just do Headscale on a VPS.
Or Wireguard on a VPS
-
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.
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.
-
wrote last edited by [email protected]
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 companiesTo 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
-
Just use normal wireguard, why do you need tails or heads at all?
Accessing your home network that is kept inside a NAT by your ISP, without you having to acquire an online server somewhere.
-
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.
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.
-
Just use normal wireguard, why do you need tails or heads at all?
Tailscale offers way more then just wireguard. ACLs, NAT traversal etc. etc.
While some use cases can be replaced with traditional wireguard, others not.
-
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.
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.
-
Accessing your home network that is kept inside a NAT by your ISP, without you having to acquire an online server somewhere.
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.
-
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.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It doesn't matter in either case. Neither of them have control over the underlying technology.
-
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.
-
Tailscale never sat right with me. The convenience was nice, but - like other VC-funded projects - it followed that ever-familiar pattern of an "easy" service popping up out of nowhere and gaining massive popularity seemingly overnight.
I can't say I'm surprised by any of this.
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.
-
Corporate VPN startup Tailscale secures $230 million CAD Series C on back of “surprising” growth
Pennarun confirmed the company had been approached by potential acquirers, but told BetaKit that the company intends to grow as a private company and work towards an initial public offering (IPO).
“Tailscale intends to remain independent and we are on a likely IPO track, although any IPO is several years out,” Pennarun said. “Meanwhile, we have an extremely efficient business model, rapid revenue acceleration, and a long runway that allows us to become profitable when needed, which means we can weather all kinds of economic storms.”
Keep that in mind as you ponder whether and when to switch to self-hosting Headscale.
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
-
Does The Linux Foundation have complete control over Linux?
You're the one who said it, though.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
