3 ms·
I feel the opposite way. Subscribed to the Wireguard mailing list for a while and the author seems very friendly, even to help requests that are really .. stre
by darklajid 9y ago
I feel the opposite way.
Subscribed to the Wireguard mailing list for a while and the author seems very friendly, even to help requests that are really .. stretching what a mailing list should be for.
Yes, this reply was rather harsh, but if there's someone who jumps on a somewhat popular project and implements (competing, it seems cross platform clients are 'coming soon') commercial/closed source clients than I do understand some .. frustration.
On top of that: Both the author of TunSafe and Wireguard seems to agree that - at least on Windows - TunSafe requires a rather scary tun driver?
(I am not a security expert..)
- ludde 9y agoAlso the official not-ready-yet WireGuard cross platform Go/Rust clients require this "scary" driver.
- ascorbic 9y agoIf you've created a new open protocol I'd imagine most people would welcome new implementations, especially on platforms that you don't currently support.
- darklajid 9y agoMaybe. Probably. And I think the guy does? He doesn't seem to feel good about a closed source implementation completely disconnected from the project, for a protocol that is as of now unreleased, only releases snapshots with large warnings to not yet depend on it. The attitude makes sense to me, from a developer's point of view (Will TunSafe follow Wireguard changes closely? How sound is it, compared to the project's own codebase?) and a project's/personal point of view: Someone invests a lot of time into Wireguard and before it's "ready" someone else builds closed source clients with a fancy website for the two biggest operating systems. YMMV.