21–30 of 162 posts
Don't forget Nebula[1]. [1] https://slack.engineering/introducing-nebula-the-open-source...
Used Nebula to build a cross-cloud Nomad cluster, very underrated and does 99% of what you'd want from Tailscale.
EDIT: my bad, they have an Android client
This article is classic SEO fluff right? The Q&A style answering exactly the type of questions that people comparing the two would write into google search.
This article is classic SEO fluff right? The Q&A style answering exactly the type of questions that people comparing the two would write into google search.
Something like:
"Introducing NarrowLink, the world's most advanced and secure VPN solution! With our cutting-edge technology, you'll experience unparalleled speed, reliability, and security. Our military-grade encryption ensures that your data stays private and safe from prying eyes. Enjoy unlimited access to all your favorite content, no matter where you are in the world. Say goodbye to restrictions and hello to a new era of internet freedom. Join millions of satisfied customers and take control of your online experience with NarrowLink today!"
would be fluff.
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
[1] https://github.com/juanfont/headscale
[2] https://github.com/juanfont/headscale/blob/main/docs/web-ui....
For people for which the SaaSiness of Tailscale would be the main deciding factor, it is important to note that this article completely fails to mention Headscale, a BSD-licenced tailscale-compatible coordination server under active development
We tried switching to Headscale recently...it was not a pleasant experience. I'm sure with more time in the oven, it will eventually become a comparable replacement, but I wouldn't be relying on it for anything production oriented.
> However, tailscale focuses on access different devices to each other, while Narrowlink focuses on access to the services trough on the agent as a proxy. You can easily do the same thing with Tailscale: https://tailscale.com/kb/1019/subnets/ .
What does the sentence you quoted even mean? This reads like a rough first draft that needs to be clarified. I don't get it at all.
I assume the services trough is somewhat of a poor man's service bus
Seems Narrowlink is tunneling at socket level; while Tailscale is tunneling at network / IP level. I think they are comparing apple to orange here.
apples and oranges are pretty comprable. they are different things, but serve the same purpose and are often used interchangeably. it's perfectly reasonable to compare those two things.
For people for which the SaaSiness of Tailscale would be the main deciding factor, it is important to note that this article completely fails to mention Headscale, a BSD-licenced tailscale-compatible coordination server under active development
We tried switching to Headscale recently...it was not a pleasant experience. I'm sure with more time in the oven, it will eventually become a comparable replacement, but I wouldn't be relying on it for anything production oriented.
What issues did you face? :)
Definitely interested in this, however: >Narrowlink uses a centralized gateway that clients and agents connect to over HTTP/S protocols Tunneling TCP over TCP will undoubtedly result in poor network performance. This is why WireGuard is UDP-only.
And on the other hand, HTTP/S is often using UDP for the transport now
I started reading through the Narrowlink URL, but the frequency of typos was frustrating enough the I came right back to HackerNews to read the comments and synopsis of what the kerfuffle is about. Thanks for the pointer to headscale - will take a look ;)