Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tailscale vs. Narrowlink

narrowlink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 162 posts

Re: Tailscale vs. Narrowlink

#71

Post by hk__2 »

crawshaw wrote: post #70
tailspin2019 wrote: post #24

> 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 p…

(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.

> 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)

Re: Tailscale vs. Narrowlink

#72

Post by skrtskrt »

predictabl3 wrote: post #37
tailspin2019 wrote: post #24

> 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 p…

> 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.

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.

Re: Tailscale vs. Narrowlink

#73

Post by crawshaw »

hk__2 wrote: post #71
crawshaw wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

> 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 op…

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.

Re: Tailscale vs. Narrowlink

#76

Post by pxeger1 »

Semaphor wrote: post #68
pxeger1 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Perfectly fine, and perfectly open source.

I know, I'm just suggesting what GGP might have been referring to

Re: Tailscale vs. Narrowlink

#77

Post by [deleted] »

crawshaw wrote: post #73
hk__2 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 op…

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]

Re: Tailscale vs. Narrowlink

#79

Post by SequoiaHope »

crawshaw wrote: post #73
hk__2 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 op…

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.

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.

Re: Tailscale vs. Narrowlink

#80

Post by travem »

fragmede wrote: post #23
bootsmann wrote: post #3

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.

What makes it "fluff" to you? My definition of "fluff" is that it doesn't answer my question, and that I walk away from it with no idea what the product even is. This is mostly concrete and I can tell you roughly what Narrowlink is and isn't after reading their (misspelled) page. Something like: "Introducing NarrowLink, the world's most advanced and secure VPN solution! With our cutting-edge technology, you'll experi…

> VPN solution

You included what the product actually is in the first sentence so I can tell you are still lacking some real marketing obfuscation skills

Post reply on HN