Several of the criticisms in this article seem fair, some less so to me, but this does really hit the problem on the head:

> It is not very hard for me to conclude that WireGuard is not ready - yet.

> It has been drafted as a lightweight and fast solution to some problems of the existing solutions. Unfortunately it has sacrificed many features that will be relevant for many users and therefore will not be able to replace IPsec and OpenVPN.

> For that we need to add at least IP address assignment, pushing configuration like DNS servers and routes.

This has certainly been the case for me. My use case for a VPN is a typical road warrior set-up. In my experience Wireguard seems like it's probably great for people who are accustomed to setting up custom VPN configurations already, and in fact probably simplifies the steps in doing so. But as someone who just needs a set-it-and-forget-it configuration to remote in and forward my connections that just consistently works, trying to get Wireguard working was hours of misery.

There's enough tooling built around OpenVPN that you can generate a simple .ovpn configuration that just works and does everything you want in a few minutes. You don't need to be a professional network admin or have a lot of experience configuring VPNs. I hope Wireguard gets to that point because I really do believe in its technical superiority.