PiVPN v4.6.0: The End • Hacker News Board

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#21

Post by planb » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:17 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #17

BossingAround wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can maintain it right now. Make a fork, and continue development. You might even get some shoutout from the original devs. It's all open source after all, making this repo read-only doesn't mean the project's dead if the community is vibrant enough.

The community matters. It's one thing to get control of the official websites, official packages, etc, and another to have to tell every single user "come use my fork".

But this is dangerous. There are many „Jia Tans“ out there who would love to continue maintenance of those projects with the full community.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#22

Post by unethical_ban » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:19 PM UTC

Thanks to the maintainers of the project. It is a handy tool, a good wrapper around setting up simple wireguard quickly. And it pairs with pihole really well.

I migrated to OPNSense for my DNS and I haven't needed VPN for a little bit. But I kind of disagree that there is no place for a simple CLI tool for wireguard user management.

I was going to make a comment about how unreasonable it is to shut the project down instead of letting someone else take it over. But two things come to mind: First, yes, people can fork it and develop it on their own. Second, right after xz, maybe it would seem unwise to endorse a stranger taking over your security project.

PS: PiVPN isn't wireguard itself. Assuming WG's command line doesn't change radically for a while, PiVPN is still completely usable and people don't need to rush to get off it.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#23

Post by bartonfink » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #17

BossingAround wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can maintain it right now. Make a fork, and continue development. You might even get some shoutout from the original devs. It's all open source after all, making this repo read-only doesn't mean the project's dead if the community is vibrant enough.

The community matters. It's one thing to get control of the official websites, official packages, etc, and another to have to tell every single user "come use my fork".

So you want someone else to run it so you can just be part of a community? Seems selfish.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#24

Post by poisonborz » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:21 PM UTC

Eh, I just wanted to migrate to this, a lot of threads recommend it as the best way to effortlessly set up Wireguard. WG-easy, Headscale have their own set of problems. I guess there will be forks.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#25

Post by Zambyte » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:22 PM UTC

reachableceo wrote: post #15

stavros wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? I wish people would put their projects in something like https://www.codeshelter.co so anyone who's interested can maintain them, instead of just killing them.

The project can be forked with a single click. That’s the beauty of GitHub.

That's actually the beauty of git, and any other DVCSs. It's one click to "fork" with lots of other forges as well.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#26

Post by byteknight » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:22 PM UTC

poisonborz wrote: post #24

Eh, I just wanted to migrate to this, a lot of threads recommend it as the best way to effortlessly set up Wireguard. WG-easy, Headscale have their own set of problems. I guess there will be forks.

Shameless plug for an alternative?

> WireHole is a combination of WireGuard, Pi-hole, and Unbound in a docker-compose project with the intent of enabling users to quickly and easily create a personally managed full or split-tunnel WireGuard VPN with ad blocking capabilities thanks to Pi-hole, and DNS caching, additional privacy options, and upstream providers via Unbound.

https://github.com/IAmStoxe/wirehole

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#27

Post by jimmyl02 » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:24 PM UTC

curious to hear does anyone know what the mentioned alternatives are? a super simple to use wireguard control plane is super valuable and PiVPN seemed to fit that gap perfectly

unfortunate that it's come to an end but it's nice to hear the maintainer moving on in such a positive way :)

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#28

Post by stavros » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:27 PM UTC

planb wrote: post #21

stavros wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The community matters. It's one thing to get control of the official websites, official packages, etc, and another to have to tell every single user "come use my fork".

But this is dangerous. There are many „Jia Tans“ out there who would love to continue maintenance of those projects with the full community.

Yeah, we always knew there were. Open source can't stop existing because there are bad actors.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#29

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:34 PM UTC

jimmyl02 wrote: post #27

curious to hear does anyone know what the mentioned alternatives are? a super simple to use wireguard control plane is super valuable and PiVPN seemed to fit that gap perfectly unfortunate that it's come to an end but it's nice to hear the maintainer moving on in such a positive way :)

[deleted]

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#30

Post by sevg » Sat, Apr 06, 2024, 5:36 PM UTC

stavros wrote: post #28

planb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this is dangerous. There are many „Jia Tans“ out there who would love to continue maintenance of those projects with the full community.

Yeah, we always knew there were. Open source can't stop existing because there are bad actors.

So you're saying that if projects continue choosing to sunset without handing over the keys to the kingdom, open source will stop existing?

This is simply not even close to true.

Edit: I can't reply to your reply, so here will do. You've completely ignored my main point. I get that you want projects to pass on the torch, but saying open source will otherwise die is ridiculous.