6 ms·

> Narrowlink and Tailscale are two open source solutions with different architectures that enable secure remote access and connectivity across networks. A nitp

by tailspin2019 3y ago

> Narrowlink and Tailscale are two open source solutions with different architectures that enable secure remote access and connectivity across networks. A nitpick, but ironically I think they're being generous to Tailscale there. Tailscale isn't really "open source" - or at least not without heavy qualification. I'm not an open source zealot by any means but that line just seems a little misleading. The clients are partially open source [0], but the server isn't at all. There is an open-source implementation of the Tailscale server called Headscale, but Headscale is not Tailscale. This distinction is important because a significant part of the value proposition of Tailscale compared to other overlay/mesh networks is their very well designed web UI which makes managing their Wireguard based networks very user friendly. Headscale has no UI (edit: there are some third-party "unofficial" Headscale UIs [2]). In fact the Headscale repo still says explicitly "This project is not associated with Tailscale Inc." [1] even though I understand that it is (unofficially?) supported by Tailscale these days. [0] https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale [1] https://github.com/juanfont/headscale https://github.com/juanfont/headscale [2] https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/blob/main/docs/web-ui.md https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/blob/main/docs/web-ui....

predictabl3 3y ago
> significant part of the value proposition of Tailscale is their very well designed web UI which makes managing their Wireguard based networks very user friendly. I think this is an opinion. I don't use the tags/rules, and I literally only use their website to complete the oauth flow to auth a new client. Headscale is a perfectly functional replacement of Tailscale for me.
- tailspin2019 3y ago
  I don't mean to downplay the value of Headscale, but only to make the point that it's quite a different beast to the Tailscale SaaS experience. For the record I think Headscale is an impressive project.
- skrtskrt 3y ago
  I interviewed there and asked about this and they said their coordination server and (and other UI features UI) are almost completely about satisfying very demanding enterprise customers, with one of the major concerns being the performance particularly of applying ACL rules across huge complex networks. They said there would be a lot of code cleanup to open source the coordination server, and it's not been completely ruled out but Headscale is such a nice alternative for those that care about an open source coordination server that it doesn't seem to be a big motivation.
yebyen 3y ago
Reverse nit, there is a UI for headscale: https://github.com/gurucomputing/headscale-ui https://github.com/gurucomputing/headscale-ui Granted, that's also not tailscale.
- tailspin2019 3y ago
  > Granted, that's also not tailscale. I take your point, but they're technically not Headscale either! Yes there are a few third-party UIs for Headscale but now we are 3 times removed from Tailscale :)
  - yebyen 3y ago
    Ah, looks like there are several! And they're all third-(third-)party... > https://headscale.net/web-ui/ https://headscale.net/web-ui/
gunapologist99 3y ago
Perhaps narrowlink doesn't want to draw attention to this: https://github.com/narrowlink/narrowlink/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/narrowlink/narrowlink/blob/main/LICENSE.m...
- amarshall 3y ago
  What’s to draw attention to there? MPL and AGPL are both Open Source licenses.
  - pxeger1 3y ago
    > For companies or organizations whose policies are not compatible with the AGPL-3.0 license, we offer a separate business license. To inquire about the business license or discuss licensing options, please contact us at opensource@narrowlink.com.
    - Semaphor 3y ago
      Perfectly fine, and perfectly open source.
      - pxeger1 3y ago
        I know, I'm just suggesting what GGP might have been referring to
  - KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
    One's not usable in any corporate context, especially one that's so low level in the network stack. The doc post is a content marketing post (in this case, for SEO hacking specifically) disguised as a technical comparison, so they clearly have monetisation in mind. In other words, disingenuous advertising.
    - midasuni 3y ago
      Why isn’t AGPL usable?
LambdaComplex 3y ago
> I understand that [Headscale] is (unofficially?) supported by Tailscale these days I'm not sure if it clears the bar of official, but it seems to be not-unofficial. They were planning on open-sourcing a coordination server once they cleaned the code up, but then decided that there was no point in doing so due to Headscale. On top of that, one of the primary maintainers of Headscale works at Tailscale now. Source: https://tailscale.com/blog/opensource/ https://tailscale.com/blog/opensource/
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Sounds like someone may have thought the code for Headscale "coordination" server was higher quality than the code for Tailscale "coordination" server. If the later needed to be "cleaned up". Maybe there were things in that code Tailscale did not want the public to see. Funny how Wireguard's original pitch was that it was smaller and simpler than OpenVPN or other alternatives. Now people are commercialising some complex GUI on top of it. More "features" on a steady basis. Some of them might be closed source but pay no mind. "Worse is better".
  - SadTrombone 3y ago
    There's absolutely nothing stopping you from just using WireGuard if you want to. I don't understand the mentality of complaining about a completely separate entity offering extra features just because you don't personally have a need/want for them.
    - cchance 3y ago
      I don't get the issue with having a tight secure underlying vpn protocol, and others building on top of it to improve deployment and setup/management side of it.
      - SadTrombone 3y ago
        Agreed. I don't think people recognize how much of a pain cert management/orchestration can be, and Tailscale's value adds like MagicDNS and managing/creating SSH keys for logging into servers are significant QoL improvements. Sure, you can do that stuff on your own, but I simply don't want to.
juanfont 3y ago
> even though I understand that it is (unofficially?) supported by Tailscale these days. https://tailscale.com/blog/opensource/ https://tailscale.com/blog/opensource/
- tailspin2019 3y ago
  I was drawing attention to this line in your README: > This project is not associated with Tailscale Inc. :)
  - juanfont 3y ago
    Ah, I was not stating anything else than linking their blog post :) I am pretty sure they would have eventually published a control server. We just happened to be quicker (and come up with a great name, IMHO).
  - chipsa 3y ago
    Tailscale hired the guy who wrote Headscale, for him to work on software, so they're sponsoring the programmer who's working it, but it's not "Tailscale" software, and they have no warranty, express or implied, because it's not theirs. It's its own project.
crawshaw 3y ago
(Tailscalar) The client is completely open source on open source operating systems. The repository you linked to is 100% of the client for Linux, and there's another repository for Android. As a bonus you can run the open source client on closed source OSs, i.e. macOS, WSL2. We never open sourced our coordination server because Headscale beat us to it.
- hk__2 3y ago
  > We never open sourced our coordination server because Headscale beat us to it. From what I understand, Headscale has not all the capabilities of Tailscale’s server. Excerpt from Headscale’s README: > Headscale's goal is to provide self-hosters and hobbyists with an open-source server they can use for their projects and labs. It implements a narrow scope, a single Tailnet, suitable for a personal use, or a small open-source organisation. (emphasis mine)
  - crawshaw 3y ago
    Sure, and that seems very reasonable? If you're running your own coordination server, stand one up for each tailnet you want to run. Different software has different operating requirements, and headscale is building to requirements that are better suited to someone running their own. E.g. our internal coordination server has a bunch of goop in it for talking to a couple of AWS services we use. No-one wants that.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - SequoiaHope 3y ago
      Personally I just feel better recommending something to people if I know the service is 100% open source. I don’t care if the code includes stuff “no one wants”. I’m a talescale user and I love it, but I do feel a bit weird using and recommending a service with important bits that are proprietary. At the same time, part of why I like the service is that it’s dead simple to use. I imagine headscale takes more effort to set up and use. So I use the proprietary client, and just kinda feel weird about it. If it were open source I wouldn’t have those reservations.
Jedd 3y ago
> Tailscale isn't really "open source" ... As you would have read a few paragraphs further on in TFA they describe the situation with much more clarity: "Tailscale uses the open source WireGuard protocol, and its client apps are open source, but the coordination services are proprietary."

predictabl3 3y ago

> significant part of the value proposition of Tailscale is their very well designed web UI which makes managing their Wireguard based networks very user friendly. I think this is an opinion. I don't use the tags/rules, and I literally only use their website to complete the oauth flow to auth a new client. Headscale is a perfectly functional replacement of Tailscale for me.

tailspin2019 3y ago
I don't mean to downplay the value of Headscale, but only to make the point that it's quite a different beast to the Tailscale SaaS experience. For the record I think Headscale is an impressive project.
skrtskrt 3y ago
I interviewed there and asked about this and they said their coordination server and (and other UI features UI) are almost completely about satisfying very demanding enterprise customers, with one of the major concerns being the performance particularly of applying ACL rules across huge complex networks. They said there would be a lot of code cleanup to open source the coordination server, and it's not been completely ruled out but Headscale is such a nice alternative for those that care about an open source coordination server that it doesn't seem to be a big motivation.

yebyen 3y ago

Reverse nit, there is a UI for headscale: https://github.com/gurucomputing/headscale-ui https://github.com/gurucomputing/headscale-ui Granted, that's also not tailscale.

tailspin2019 3y ago
> Granted, that's also not tailscale. I take your point, but they're technically not Headscale either! Yes there are a few third-party UIs for Headscale but now we are 3 times removed from Tailscale :)
- yebyen 3y ago
  Ah, looks like there are several! And they're all third-(third-)party... > https://headscale.net/web-ui/ https://headscale.net/web-ui/

gunapologist99 3y ago

Perhaps narrowlink doesn't want to draw attention to this: https://github.com/narrowlink/narrowlink/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/narrowlink/narrowlink/blob/main/LICENSE.m...

amarshall 3y ago
What’s to draw attention to there? MPL and AGPL are both Open Source licenses.
- pxeger1 3y ago
  > For companies or organizations whose policies are not compatible with the AGPL-3.0 license, we offer a separate business license. To inquire about the business license or discuss licensing options, please contact us at opensource@narrowlink.com.
  - Semaphor 3y ago
    Perfectly fine, and perfectly open source.
    - pxeger1 3y ago
      I know, I'm just suggesting what GGP might have been referring to
- KRAKRISMOTT 3y ago
  One's not usable in any corporate context, especially one that's so low level in the network stack. The doc post is a content marketing post (in this case, for SEO hacking specifically) disguised as a technical comparison, so they clearly have monetisation in mind. In other words, disingenuous advertising.
  - midasuni 3y ago
    Why isn’t AGPL usable?

LambdaComplex 3y ago

> I understand that [Headscale] is (unofficially?) supported by Tailscale these days I'm not sure if it clears the bar of official, but it seems to be not-unofficial. They were planning on open-sourcing a coordination server once they cleaned the code up, but then decided that there was no point in doing so due to Headscale. On top of that, one of the primary maintainers of Headscale works at Tailscale now. Source: https://tailscale.com/blog/opensource/ https://tailscale.com/blog/opensource/

1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
Sounds like someone may have thought the code for Headscale "coordination" server was higher quality than the code for Tailscale "coordination" server. If the later needed to be "cleaned up". Maybe there were things in that code Tailscale did not want the public to see. Funny how Wireguard's original pitch was that it was smaller and simpler than OpenVPN or other alternatives. Now people are commercialising some complex GUI on top of it. More "features" on a steady basis. Some of them might be closed source but pay no mind. "Worse is better".
- SadTrombone 3y ago
  There's absolutely nothing stopping you from just using WireGuard if you want to. I don't understand the mentality of complaining about a completely separate entity offering extra features just because you don't personally have a need/want for them.
  - cchance 3y ago
    I don't get the issue with having a tight secure underlying vpn protocol, and others building on top of it to improve deployment and setup/management side of it.
    - SadTrombone 3y ago
      Agreed. I don't think people recognize how much of a pain cert management/orchestration can be, and Tailscale's value adds like MagicDNS and managing/creating SSH keys for logging into servers are significant QoL improvements. Sure, you can do that stuff on your own, but I simply don't want to.

juanfont 3y ago

> even though I understand that it is (unofficially?) supported by Tailscale these days. https://tailscale.com/blog/opensource/ https://tailscale.com/blog/opensource/

tailspin2019 3y ago
I was drawing attention to this line in your README: > This project is not associated with Tailscale Inc. :)
- juanfont 3y ago
  Ah, I was not stating anything else than linking their blog post :) I am pretty sure they would have eventually published a control server. We just happened to be quicker (and come up with a great name, IMHO).
- chipsa 3y ago
  Tailscale hired the guy who wrote Headscale, for him to work on software, so they're sponsoring the programmer who's working it, but it's not "Tailscale" software, and they have no warranty, express or implied, because it's not theirs. It's its own project.

crawshaw 3y ago

(Tailscalar) The client is completely open source on open source operating systems. The repository you linked to is 100% of the client for Linux, and there's another repository for Android. As a bonus you can run the open source client on closed source OSs, i.e. macOS, WSL2. We never open sourced our coordination server because Headscale beat us to it.

hk__2 3y ago
> We never open sourced our coordination server because Headscale beat us to it. From what I understand, Headscale has not all the capabilities of Tailscale’s server. Excerpt from Headscale’s README: > Headscale's goal is to provide self-hosters and hobbyists with an open-source server they can use for their projects and labs. It implements a narrow scope, a single Tailnet, suitable for a personal use, or a small open-source organisation. (emphasis mine)
- crawshaw 3y ago
  Sure, and that seems very reasonable? If you're running your own coordination server, stand one up for each tailnet you want to run. Different software has different operating requirements, and headscale is building to requirements that are better suited to someone running their own. E.g. our internal coordination server has a bunch of goop in it for talking to a couple of AWS services we use. No-one wants that.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - SequoiaHope 3y ago
    Personally I just feel better recommending something to people if I know the service is 100% open source. I don’t care if the code includes stuff “no one wants”. I’m a talescale user and I love it, but I do feel a bit weird using and recommending a service with important bits that are proprietary. At the same time, part of why I like the service is that it’s dead simple to use. I imagine headscale takes more effort to set up and use. So I use the proprietary client, and just kinda feel weird about it. If it were open source I wouldn’t have those reservations.

Jedd 3y ago

> Tailscale isn't really "open source" ... As you would have read a few paragraphs further on in TFA they describe the situation with much more clarity: "Tailscale uses the open source WireGuard protocol, and its client apps are open source, but the coordination services are proprietary."