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

PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#31

Post by pogue »

byteknight wrote: post #26
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

Sounds very cool, thanks for the recommendation! Lots of videos on YT with setup guides too!

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#32

Post by pogue »

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 :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39953873

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#33

Post by sthlmb »

stavros wrote: post #19
bornfreddy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you, as the project maintainer and possibly even founder, trust these people?

The maintainers are vetted before joining, and are removed if they do something untoward, but when the choice is between killing the project or giving it to some random person, Code Shelter provides a better alternative.

What if they pass the joining process but then later sneak something in that goes undetected until things go boom? There are alternatives, you can fork the original project, and things will go on. As others have said too, you can just update the underlying software and there's a good chance that the wrapper itself will continue functioning, providing there are no giant breaking changes and by that point, a fork or alternative will likely have handled it.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#34

Post by stavros »

sevg wrote: post #30
stavros wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Continue choosing to sunset"? A large amount of projects does not sunset, it gets passed on instead.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#35

Post by MuffinFlavored »

oneplane wrote: post #9

This is the best way to conclude a project like this, I wish more clear cut "this is the end" choices were made. An ecosystem with zombie projects isn't healthy.

> I've been giving less and less attention to PiVPN, and the desire to keep up with it is no longer what it once was.

I wonder if financial/monetary incentive would change this. I don't think it would personally (because putting a value on your free time/mental load/time you can spend with your loved ones doing something else away from the PC is precious)

On the flip side... $500/mo? $1k/mo? $5k/mo? I'm sure most projects that go "defunct" open-source-free-no-financial-incentive-thanklessly-help-build-something could probably find "motivated maintainers" for $3k/mo on average? Internationally?

Is the "capitalist" answer "this repo and all of its efforts are not worth $3k/mo to the open market"?

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#36

Post by stavros »

sthlmb wrote: post #33
stavros wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The maintainers are vetted before joining, and are removed if they do something untoward, but when the choice is between killing the project or giving it to some random person, Code Shelter provides a better alternative.

What if they pass the joining process but then later sneak something in that goes undetected until things go boom? There are alternatives, you can fork the original project, and things will go on. As others have said too, you can just update the underlying software and there's a good chance that the wrapper itself will continue functioning, providing there are no giant breaking changes and by that point, a fork or al…

What if there's no joining process, and they contact a maintainer directly, and peer pressure them to hand over the project, and the maintainer does, and then they sneak a backdoor in some binary test files?

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#37

Post by glitchcrab »

bartonfink wrote: post #23
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".

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

That's not what they meant at all, don't be obtuse. The community exists around the project (in this case the repo and associated website etc). If you fork it then you have to hope that the community follows you to your fork and that then everyone coalesces around it. This isn't guaranteed to work though, so passing the existing project onto a new maintainer is a much better way of retaining the existing community. That is what was meant when talking about the community.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#38

Post by prmoustache »

stavros wrote: post #11
oneplane wrote: post #9

This is the best way to conclude a project like this, I wish more clear cut "this is the end" choices were made. An ecosystem with zombie projects isn't healthy.

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.

It is not killed, anyone can pull the repo and work on it.

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#39

Post by DeathArrow »

MuffinFlavored wrote: post #35
oneplane wrote: post #9

This is the best way to conclude a project like this, I wish more clear cut "this is the end" choices were made. An ecosystem with zombie projects isn't healthy.

> I've been giving less and less attention to PiVPN, and the desire to keep up with it is no longer what it once was. I wonder if financial/monetary incentive would change this. I don't think it would personally (because putting a value on your free time/mental load/time you can spend with your loved ones doing something else away from the PC is precious) On the flip side... $500/mo? $1k/mo? $5k/mo? I'm sure most pro…

Who will pay? For sure there are developers willing to take care of it if they are payed, but who is willing to pay them?

Re: PiVPN v4.6.0: The End

#40

Post by Havoc »

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 :)

wg-easy comes to mind
Post reply on HN