4 ms·

(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 a

(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.
    - p_l 3y ago
      Having recently put some work to essentially sell headscale-as-a-service (to clients that for various reasons wouldn't want to pay tailscale anyway even if they found the service great), about only issues between tailscale and headscale are that headscale got a bit of cruft regarding internal models that are currently being worked on, and for practical purposes it shows up in a bit harder time handling ACLs and no tailnet-peering support.
      - SequoiaHope 3y ago
        It strikes me that if you had to build a service platform, then that shows me there is a difference in the systems from a user perspective. I am a very technical user but I do NOT want to spend my time configuring network stuff, that's the whole reason I use tailscale. The fact that headscale is self hosted immediately creates barriers that tailscale does not have. I already host several web servers and it a huge pain that I want to do less of. (Everything is fine on digitalocean until some update does something weird and I have to spend a few days debugging it).
        smoldesu 3y ago
        It's a networking service. Inherently, there are things you will be able to orchestrate easier from a centralized perspective than a self-hosted one. You're correct to nit-pick the difference between Headscale and Tailscale as software products, but I think this is splitting hairs. There are perfectly valid reasons why both are different. Given Tailscale's featureset as a product, it's not reasonable to expect it's self-hosted alternative to be a pushbutton replacement.
        TaylorAlexander 3y ago
        > Given Tailscale's featureset as a product, it's not reasonable to expect it's self-hosted alternative to be a pushbutton replacement. Yeah, exactly. That’s why I started this thread by disagreeing with the tailscale employee who said “we don’t need to open source tailscale because headscale already exists.” Headscale and tailscale are not the same. I want to use tailscale, and I would love it if tailscale was open source! If truly the only reason they’re not open sourcing tailscale is that headscale exists, they’re kind of missing that existing tailscale customers will not all see headscale as a replacement but might still prefer open source.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
uxp8u61q 3y ago
> We never open sourced our coordination server because Headscale beat us to it. Can you elaborate? This sentence makes no sense to me. Headscale is not tailscale, so they didn't "beat you to it", they just released a competiting product.
- aidos 3y ago
  They’ve been really good about promoting and supporting headscale. I feel like this comment from Bradfitz gives a nice little insight into the reality of open sourcing code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32470615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32470615
lloeki 3y ago
> The client is completely open source on open source operating systems. IOW it's by and large the GUI part that is not open source. Personally I prefer to run it as a system LaunchDaemon than a user LaunchAgent anyway. > We never open sourced our coordination server because Headscale beat us to it. I seem to recall reading that another reason was that there was intent to open source it but it made little sense as far as running it because its code was written for (and coupled to) Tailscale's heavy duty infra. So Headscale beat Tailscale to it by providing not just code but code that could work on much wider contexts.
- p_l 3y ago
  the GUI part is also open source (I went looking recently in hope of adding support for `tailscale switch` on android). It's just in surprisingly weird toolkits :)
  - phibz 3y ago
    By gui i think the above posts meant the tailscale web UI for auth and account management.
    - lloeki 3y ago
      Nope I meant the macOS and iOS UI (possibly more)
  - dsissitka 3y ago
    Their clients consist of a daemon and, optionally, a GUI. The daemon is open source. The Android and Linux GUIs are open source but the Windows, iOS, and macOS GUIs aren't. Source: https://tailscale.com/opensource/ https://tailscale.com/opensource/
freedomben 3y ago
I'm a big open source advocate and would be heavily critical if the Linux and Android clients weren't open source, but I don't see how a person can complain about tailscale being closed source on an operating system like Macos or iphone or Windows, when the entire platform practically is closed. Such person clearly does not have a problem or concern about using proprietary and closed systems. I think tailscales position here makes a lot of sense, and if it bothers somebody because they see the tremendous value in open source, I hope it would cause them to consider their platform of choice.

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.
  - p_l 3y ago
    Having recently put some work to essentially sell headscale-as-a-service (to clients that for various reasons wouldn't want to pay tailscale anyway even if they found the service great), about only issues between tailscale and headscale are that headscale got a bit of cruft regarding internal models that are currently being worked on, and for practical purposes it shows up in a bit harder time handling ACLs and no tailnet-peering support.
    - SequoiaHope 3y ago
      It strikes me that if you had to build a service platform, then that shows me there is a difference in the systems from a user perspective. I am a very technical user but I do NOT want to spend my time configuring network stuff, that's the whole reason I use tailscale. The fact that headscale is self hosted immediately creates barriers that tailscale does not have. I already host several web servers and it a huge pain that I want to do less of. (Everything is fine on digitalocean until some update does something weird and I have to spend a few days debugging it).
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        It's a networking service. Inherently, there are things you will be able to orchestrate easier from a centralized perspective than a self-hosted one. You're correct to nit-pick the difference between Headscale and Tailscale as software products, but I think this is splitting hairs. There are perfectly valid reasons why both are different. Given Tailscale's featureset as a product, it's not reasonable to expect it's self-hosted alternative to be a pushbutton replacement.
        TaylorAlexander 3y ago
        > Given Tailscale's featureset as a product, it's not reasonable to expect it's self-hosted alternative to be a pushbutton replacement. Yeah, exactly. That’s why I started this thread by disagreeing with the tailscale employee who said “we don’t need to open source tailscale because headscale already exists.” Headscale and tailscale are not the same. I want to use tailscale, and I would love it if tailscale was open source! If truly the only reason they’re not open sourcing tailscale is that headscale exists, they’re kind of missing that existing tailscale customers will not all see headscale as a replacement but might still prefer open source.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

uxp8u61q 3y ago

> We never open sourced our coordination server because Headscale beat us to it. Can you elaborate? This sentence makes no sense to me. Headscale is not tailscale, so they didn't "beat you to it", they just released a competiting product.

aidos 3y ago
They’ve been really good about promoting and supporting headscale. I feel like this comment from Bradfitz gives a nice little insight into the reality of open sourcing code. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32470615 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32470615

lloeki 3y ago

> The client is completely open source on open source operating systems. IOW it's by and large the GUI part that is not open source. Personally I prefer to run it as a system LaunchDaemon than a user LaunchAgent anyway. > We never open sourced our coordination server because Headscale beat us to it. I seem to recall reading that another reason was that there was intent to open source it but it made little sense as far as running it because its code was written for (and coupled to) Tailscale's heavy duty infra. So Headscale beat Tailscale to it by providing not just code but code that could work on much wider contexts.

p_l 3y ago
the GUI part is also open source (I went looking recently in hope of adding support for `tailscale switch` on android). It's just in surprisingly weird toolkits :)
- phibz 3y ago
  By gui i think the above posts meant the tailscale web UI for auth and account management.
  - lloeki 3y ago
    Nope I meant the macOS and iOS UI (possibly more)
- dsissitka 3y ago
  Their clients consist of a daemon and, optionally, a GUI. The daemon is open source. The Android and Linux GUIs are open source but the Windows, iOS, and macOS GUIs aren't. Source: https://tailscale.com/opensource/ https://tailscale.com/opensource/

freedomben 3y ago

I'm a big open source advocate and would be heavily critical if the Linux and Android clients weren't open source, but I don't see how a person can complain about tailscale being closed source on an operating system like Macos or iphone or Windows, when the entire platform practically is closed. Such person clearly does not have a problem or concern about using proprietary and closed systems. I think tailscales position here makes a lot of sense, and if it bothers somebody because they see the tremendous value in open source, I hope it would cause them to consider their platform of choice.