7 ms·

> I just don't trust it that it's not phoning home or leaking data. This is just irrational. The client is open source. You can build it and run it from source

> I just don't trust it that it's not phoning home or leaking data. This is just irrational. The client is open source. You can build it and run it from source.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
"This is just irrational." The sentence following the one about phoning home/leaking data explains the rationale. The computer user prefers simpler software. It's great that it's possible to compile a client provided by Tailscale from source, but this does not address the complexity issue.^1 Is the Tailscale control server open source. Why not. What's the rationale for that. There's no problem IMHO with arguing Tailscale can make its own decisions and do whatever it wants. However the same argument must apply to the computer user. He can make his own decisions and do whatever he wants. 1. Wireguard was allegedly written at least in part because OpenVPN, another open source option, was excessively complex. Tailscale relies on Wireguard. If avoiding complexity was irrational, and people behaved rationally, then perhaps Wireguard would not have been written and Tailscale would not exist. Avoiding complexity where possible sounds rational to me.
- p_l 3y ago
  Headscale is the open source central server for tailscale - it implements the same protocols etc and when you use tailscale client with it it only connects to the login server you gave it. The official reason for why there's no official open source server is that headscale got there first, before tailscale team could (their words, not mine) the unholy mess that was the production server into something people could compile and deploy themselves.
imiric 3y ago
To be fair, I'm not familiar enough with Tailscale to claim that it does any of these things. I know that parts of it aren't OSS, but can be replaced with a 3rd-party alternative that is. Even so, software being open source doesn't make it inherently trustworthy. I would have to look into it, or trust that the community has done due diligence. My default stance towards all software is to not trust it, which can change as I get familiar with the project. And then there's the complexity. I prefer using simpler tools if they accomplish what I need. It's less surface area for me to trust, and less chances for bugs. Not that Wireguard is necessarily simple, but since Tailscale is a wrapper around it with additional features, none of which I need, I'm perfectly fine using WG directly.
mcny 3y ago
> This is just irrational. The client is open source. You can build it and run it from source. Something I don’t understand is if the client is open source, why is it not in the fedora repos? Why do I need to add a new repo to dnf?
- eropple 3y ago
  Unless you want to deal with Fedora's release cycle, you're not going to push software through their repos. This isn't a Tailscale thing, this is a "just about everyone" thing.
- UI_at_80x24 3y ago
  >Something I don’t understand is if the client is open source, why is it not in the fedora repos? Why do I need to add a new repo to dnf? Just because one group of people haven't done something doesn't mean it doesn't qualify. To show the exact opposite, look at OpenBSD. They have included Wireguard into their kernel. Fedora not including Wireguard may be political, personal, or none-of-the-above. Maybe somebody hasn't offered to take on that task/responsibility.
  - ptidhomme 3y ago
    I'm not sure if GP was referring to a wireguard package or a tailscale one. But to complete the picture, there's also a tailscale package in OpenBSD's repos.

> I just don't trust it that it's not phoning home or leaking data. This is just irrational. The client is open source. You can build it and run it from source.

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago

"This is just irrational." The sentence following the one about phoning home/leaking data explains the rationale. The computer user prefers simpler software. It's great that it's possible to compile a client provided by Tailscale from source, but this does not address the complexity issue.^1 Is the Tailscale control server open source. Why not. What's the rationale for that. There's no problem IMHO with arguing Tailscale can make its own decisions and do whatever it wants. However the same argument must apply to the computer user. He can make his own decisions and do whatever he wants. 1. Wireguard was allegedly written at least in part because OpenVPN, another open source option, was excessively complex. Tailscale relies on Wireguard. If avoiding complexity was irrational, and people behaved rationally, then perhaps Wireguard would not have been written and Tailscale would not exist. Avoiding complexity where possible sounds rational to me.

p_l 3y ago
Headscale is the open source central server for tailscale - it implements the same protocols etc and when you use tailscale client with it it only connects to the login server you gave it. The official reason for why there's no official open source server is that headscale got there first, before tailscale team could (their words, not mine) the unholy mess that was the production server into something people could compile and deploy themselves.

imiric 3y ago

To be fair, I'm not familiar enough with Tailscale to claim that it does any of these things. I know that parts of it aren't OSS, but can be replaced with a 3rd-party alternative that is. Even so, software being open source doesn't make it inherently trustworthy. I would have to look into it, or trust that the community has done due diligence. My default stance towards all software is to not trust it, which can change as I get familiar with the project. And then there's the complexity. I prefer using simpler tools if they accomplish what I need. It's less surface area for me to trust, and less chances for bugs. Not that Wireguard is necessarily simple, but since Tailscale is a wrapper around it with additional features, none of which I need, I'm perfectly fine using WG directly.

mcny 3y ago

> This is just irrational. The client is open source. You can build it and run it from source. Something I don’t understand is if the client is open source, why is it not in the fedora repos? Why do I need to add a new repo to dnf?

eropple 3y ago
Unless you want to deal with Fedora's release cycle, you're not going to push software through their repos. This isn't a Tailscale thing, this is a "just about everyone" thing.
UI_at_80x24 3y ago
>Something I don’t understand is if the client is open source, why is it not in the fedora repos? Why do I need to add a new repo to dnf? Just because one group of people haven't done something doesn't mean it doesn't qualify. To show the exact opposite, look at OpenBSD. They have included Wireguard into their kernel. Fedora not including Wireguard may be political, personal, or none-of-the-above. Maybe somebody hasn't offered to take on that task/responsibility.
- ptidhomme 3y ago
  I'm not sure if GP was referring to a wireguard package or a tailscale one. But to complete the picture, there's also a tailscale package in OpenBSD's repos.