Tailscale has raised $160M
tailscale.com
tailscale.com
* The pricing tiers and included features by tier penalizes you in frustrating ways. The base plan is a reasonable $6/user/m, but if you want to use ACLs to control anything in a workable way, it jumps 3x to $18/u/m. Better solutions are available for that kind of money, and I shudder to imagine what the next tier ('call us') costs.
* Subnet routing broke on Ubuntu (maybe other distros) recently, and there were no alerts, communication from TS, or TS tools to pinpoint/figure out what was going on. I stumbled on a solution (install subnet router on a Windows box), and from there I searched and found others with that issue. Lost half a day in emergency mode over that!
* Better tooling to determine why it's falling back to DERP instead of direct for remote clients. DERP relays should be an absolute last resort to provide connectivity for Business-plan-level customers (very slow), and the way TS works just assumes any connectivity is fine.
Overall, the simplicity and abstraction of complex VPN networking is wonderful, but if you have issues or advanced needs, you are immediately thrust into the low-level UDP/NAT/STUN world you were trying to avoid. At that point, you're better off using a traditional VPN (WG, OpenVPN, or heaven forbid, IPSec), because it ends up being more straightforward (not easier) without the abstractions and easy-button stuff.
Tailscale touts all the perf benefits of the wireguard protocol but in practice between the userland wireguard that seems to be used all the time on all platform (even linux) and the over reliance on DERP, it has none of the performance benefits of the real thing.
https://tailscale.com/blog/more-throughput
Not sure if the kernel implementation pulled ahead again, I don't really follow these things.
Also not defending tailscale, I respect them but I agree they are a one size fits some solution.
It's market segmentation, needing ACLs is a sign you're at least an SMB, and to a business of nearly any actual size, the difference between $6/user and $18/user is 0.
We don't even use windows enterprise for the same reason, we have legacy office 365 plans and lifetime windows licenses without the M365 addons because it saves is a few bucks per head. At our size, a few bucks a head quickly add up to millions per year. Microsoft keeps trying to dissuade us and they even pretend office 365 plans don't exist anymore ("office 365 is now microsoft 365") but they do: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/enterprise/off... . The same with their Copilot stuff. 30$ is a non starter. Our users want it but nope (and we did a trial in one big team and only 10% actually bothered to use it after the first month so I think it's more the idea of it that want rather than the actual product)
We don't use Tailscale but $6 would be feasible where $18 would be a complete nonstarter.
In fact our company is a lot more cost conscious than I am as a consumer.
Strategy is pretty good I think. And they are also not backing down on inclusivity and sustainability despite the threats from Trump (companies with inclusivity aren't allowed to do business with the US govt blahblah). We're an EU company but this worried me a bit (I'm heavily involved in the inclusivity program). But they've already said they are absolutely not giving in on that point.
For a global all-you-can-eat enterprise-wide rollout:
* base: 20K users x $200/yr
* 50% discount: volume + multi-year + ...
=> enterprise: $1M/yr
=> 200 person division in the enterprise: $10K/yr
It's not cheap, but averaging out a global rollout, not terrible afaict
(This is super rough. Ex: Add in BYO hardware, internal staffing, pro serv, and who knows the real discounting!)
This doesn't make sense to me. It shouldn't matter if you are a small company or a large one, a few bucks per person per month is noise. I get trying to leverage scale to get a better price, but if something saves time / money, a company shouldn't refuse it just because they are large. Whoever is gatekeeping these decisions is ultimately eroding the company's value.
I wouldn't go that far. Big companies put a lot of effort into saving $12/seat.
But, if you can convince them they get >$18 of value from it they're usually happy to pay. With hobbyists it's more emotional. $6 is "just a coffee" and can be justified just to try it out. At $18/m is one of your household bills, and many will decide they enjoy watching Netflix more than messing around with Tailscale.
Better solutions would be things that make the VPN invisible, rather than 'easy'. Tools such as Teleport, IOW.
Do you have more infos on this one? I use Debian and that would be a major problem for me.
This is my experience too.
I actually came to believe the TS dream of device based VPN as opposed to AP or router based is the wrong thing because it gets confused by subnets and subnet routing so often, but also that the big security problem on networks is bad devices which it's not going to help you with unless you can wrap them up anyway.
That's one of the reasons I started playing with AP to AP real time video like https://github.com/atomirex/umbrella which is a nightmare case from the TS pov. The intention is to eventually wrap clients up on separate networks so they can only see each other via the (locally run) relay.
The clean way to build this is with firewall configuration, opening ports, and static IPs. NAT/STUN and dynamic IPs are just a hack and I don't understand why people pretend this is an acceptable solution for professional networking. Working around an infrastructure that isn't a natural law but can be changed at our will seems like a big waste of time.
Because it IS acceptable for many cases.
Many businesses don't operate in such a way as to have centralised infrastructure solely for providing internal networking, nor would they want to add the additional administrative or unnecessary routing overhead.
Even locations that would traditionally be considered highly centralised often have some form of dynamic network fabric as an overlay. Pretty much the entirety of cloud infrastructure runs on such systems, and they seem to do OK.
A change in an IP lease should result in no downtime whatsoever, because addressing is not the same as routing. A routing change would have exactly the same effect on a static IP.
I then pointed out that an overlay network means you don't have to worry about that anyway.
I think you need to reread whatever comments you think you are responding to, as there is clearly something out of sync with your replies.
As for your bandwidth concerns in the case of needing to relay, you can even set up your own relay (https://tailscale.com/kb/1118/custom-derp-servers), which would satisfy your desire to be more centralised (i guess you could force all traffic through it, but cant think why you would want to) while still allowing the flexibility of the overlay that tailscale provides.
There is no enterprise tier, instead you pay for any additional features you need. I.e. log streaming is 2$/month/user and SSH recording is 3$/month/user.
Similar sentiment can be seen in the discussion from three years ago [1] when they raised $100M.
I was about to slog through AI search results looking for an alternative.
Would this service be comparable to Headscale[0]?
Their clients for proprietary OSs are at least partly proprietary too.
To be honest I find this all a very reasonable set of compromises. It means I'm comfortable using their proprietary service without feeling like I'm getting locked into a completely closed ecosystem.
I don't know much about Tailscale, nor about how much it costs to run a company, but I thought it was mostly a software company?
I would imagine that salaries are the main cost, and revenue could cover salaries? (seems like they have a solid model - https://tailscale.com/pricing)
I'm sure they have some cloud fees, but I thought it was mostly "control plane" and not data plane, so it should be cheap?
I could be massively misunderstanding what Tailscale is ...
Did the product change a lot in the last 3 years?
$33m/year is only 33 fully loaded software developers including all overhead like HR and managers and office space, and also a cloud hosting bill.
33 really isn't that many.
It seems on the high end, but not too unrealistic.
The rule of thumb that employees actually cost a business roughly twice their salary is based on two things:
1. Retention. Hiring costs are “huge”, and so if you have a higher or lower average retention, may make up a disproportionate cost compared to salary. Ramp up time and institutional knowledge loss is no joke either.
2. A spread of average wages. 500k is not average, and a huge number of the costs are relatively fixed. $1,000 a month worth of software licensing isn’t an uncommon number and is fully 1/3 of the salary of a $3k a month or $36k/year junior clerk. It’s peanuts when you look at it next to a $500k/year salary. It may be that the clerk is, all in, costing the company 3x their salary after indemnity insurance and so on. The dev will never reach 10%.
For a 500K dev GP is correct, additional expenses will never reach 50K for someone making 500K.
... But maybe if the average employee of a company is 25 they could get a better deal
Tailscale puts salary ranges on their job postings. The salaries aren’t bad, but no, they aren’t $500k.
A few other things:
1. Go-to-market costs
Even with Tailscale's amazing product-led growth, you eventually hit a ceiling. Scaling into enterprise means real sales and marketing spend—think field sales, events, paid acquisition, content, partnerships, etc. These aren't trivial line items.
2. Enterprise sales motion
Selling to large orgs is a different beast. Longer cycles, custom security reviews, procurement bureaucracy... it all requires dedicated teams. Those teams cost money and take time to ramp.
3. Product and infra
Though Tailscale uses a control-plane-only model (which helps with infra cost), there's still significant R&D investment. As the product footprint grows (ACLs, policy routing, audit logging, device management), you need more engineers, PMs, designers, QA, support. Growth adds complexity.
4. Strategic bets
Companies at this stage often use capital to fund moonshots (like rethinking what secure networking looks like when identity is the core primitive instead of IP addresses). I don't know how they're thinking about it, but it may mean building new standards on top of the duct-taped 1980s-era networking stack the modern Internet still runs on. It's not just product evolution, it's protocol-level reinvention. That kind of standardization and stewardship takes a lot of time and a lot of dollars.
$160M is a big number. But scaling a category-defining infrastructure company isn't cheap and it's about more than just paying engineers.
That’s a path directly into a money burning machine that goes nowhere. This has been tried so many times by far larger companies, academics, and research labs but it never works (see all proposals for things like content address networking, etc). You either get zero adoption or you just run it on IPv4/6 anyway and you give up most of the problems.
IPv6 is still struggling to kill IPv4 20 years after support existing in operating systems and routers. That’s a protocol with a clear upside, somewhat socket compatible, and was backed by the IETF and hundreds of networking companies.
But even today it’s struggling and no company got rich on IPv6.
Avery (Tailscale CEO) has actually written about IPv6 in the past:
- https://apenwarr.ca/log/20170810 (2017)
- https://tailscale.com/blog/two-internets-both-flakey (2020)
Tailscale, on the other hand, doesn’t need to wait for the Internet to upgrade. Their model sits on top of the existing stack, works through NATs, and focuses on "identity-first networking". They could evolve at the transport or app layer rather than rip and replacing at the network layer. That gives them way more flexibility to innovate without requiring global consensus.
Again, I don’t know what their specific plans are, but if they’re chasing something at that layer, it’s not crazy to think of it more like building a new abstraction on top of TCP/IP vs. trying to replace it.
Don't they host the relay servers that are the fallback if NAT hole punching and their other bag of tricks doesn't work?
Go Canada!
If you raise $100M you have to put $100M to work or you'll hear constant shit from your board over it.
If they raised $160M they're going to spend $160M on something. My guess would be a lot of enterprise features and product integrations.
With x% high enough, sure, you can get VC money without too many strings. (Also, reading the Series B post, they were planning to invest - just in organic growth instead of the usual growth hacking)
And if you read the Series C post, you'd know what they're spending on - GPU (and general) cloud interconnectivity.
There's really not much need to guess, Tailscale's financing announcements are about as open as you can get.
The. fine. article. seems. to. say. lots. of. companies. are. using. Tailscale. to. connect. to. servers. with. GPUs. -- nothing. in. that. implies. that. Tailscale. would. own. the. GPUs.
Besides my joke, you are bang on, nothing implies needing to buy GPUs and based on my knowledge of their product/the space, absolutely no reason to.
What matters is why. Is it because growth is so bonkers that your burn stays minimal/zero despite increasing costs? Or is it because you don't spend anything and thus can get by with stable revenue. VCs are very happy with the first, less so with the second.
VCs would always prefer you get to megascale with less money - the less you raise, the less they get diluted.
of COURSE you can raise money and not use it.
What does this mean? They are competing with regular legacy VPNs for sure. Despite tailscale existing for the last 4 years, none of the large corporate clients even got closed to it. They were all on junk from Cisco, Palo Alto, to connect employees to corp net. A “cutting edge” one might use cloudflare warp.
You might be right that there isn’t much competition for pure distributed, but it turns out the market for that is actually quite small and it’s for people who can’t afford dedicated IPs or cloud instances.
Raising money here is a bad sign IMO unless it’s for a completely new product that requires servers at exchanges to eat CDNs like cloudflare’s lunch.
I use it in projects to stream internet / connectivity from my phone to the NVIDIA Jetson line, making my robotics projects easily accessible / debuggable:
https://github.com/burningion/bicyclist-defense-jetson?tab=r...
They've since raised more funding recently, and have larger use cases in mind for robotics: https://rerun.io/blog/physical-ai-data
I've spoken with members of the team, and they're all great. Wouldn't hesitate to use the product / work with them anywhere.
Please no.
That said, Tailscale is one of the products that just works.
Maybe a slight bias on my part as I'm a developer and not an investor.
And not that funding or advising is less important, but it's a nice feeling connecting a product I like to faces who make it happen.
In which direction?
Names/photos are not even clickable. Just first names and a photo.
Thats so cloudflare.
1. Potential customers
2. Potential investors
Both groups are a lot more swayable by social proof from seeing the "investors" than the devs as they infer a lot of credibility based on who has funded you. Similarly that's why you often see big company logos on marketing pages because it makes other customers more likely to buy. "<xyz> is too big to be wrong about this product"
Putting people on the website is, very variable. Do you update the website every week or two when someone comes or leaves? Well that's awkward if someone is fired.
You get to 100 people, then 200 people. Now what do you do? Remove everyone? Only put people on above a certain level? What do you do when someone asks you not to be listed. Or when John becomes Jane, but doesn't want to be super duper public about it?
Or, when your company gets media attention and now the moment you add/remove someone from the website you get news or social media posts about it?
They're not exactly secretive, there's just little value to have it on the main company page. (And if you just want pictures, https://tailscale.com/careers has that too.)
When we started Tailscale in 2019, we weren't even sure we wanted to be a venture-backed company. We just wanted to fix networking. Or, more specifically, make networking disappear — reduce the number of times anyone had to think about NAT traversal or VPN configurations ever again.
I will probably eventually cave and use my main account from one of those companies since creating true secondary accounts can be difficult(they end up tied back to your main account on the backend usually, So if something happens to one or the company does something- it'll affect everything and building separation is not easy.) - But I dislike that sort of design.
What is going on with your sentences man.
If you'd like to avoid this extraction, you can fork their command line client code (along with the open source headscale server) and run a mesh network across your linux machines with all the magic DNS and userspace-TCP/IP-stack goodness that you're used to. Tailscale has given away a lot of the engineering for free.
However, as soon as your fork becomes incompatible with Tailscale's stack, you lose a massive value-add: proprietary platform support. Today, you can add the sale's guy's iPhone to your tailnet in seconds. If Apple's capricious automated AppStore security pulls the Tailscale app from the AppStore, Tailscale Corp is big enough to get Apple's attention. A small FLOSS group with some forked clients on github won't be able to provide this same operational stability.
One key understanding from my brief market experience is that you must build a firewall or router if you really want to own the VPN market. The way the sale is done is that the vendor goes in with the firewall, router, and switch, offering office space connectivity with the infrastructure and various network locations and upselling the VPN. This often accounts for the subpar quality of VPN software. There is a trend called SASE, which includes technologies like TS; people are questioning the enterprise value of SASE. Netskope and Cato Networks are some examples.
I believe that their enterprise journey will be challenging, given the player's extensive experience in upmarket sales. Although TS appears appealing and has potential for improvement, the GTM is entirely unique for enterprise. You need to build reseller network, System integrator partners, high value customizations, etc.
If you decide to embrace the security positioning, you must have a diverse portfolio of products. If you model the org. around Palo Alto et al., you need a huge diversity of products, VPN, hardware, cloud security tools, app security tools, etc., as the ICP (CISO) is trying to optimize their allocated budget. People in enterprise are ok with good enough products as long as they meet compliance standards, fit the budget, and does not disrupt operations.
It could be that they might acquire bunch of companies with this capital.
But their enterprise strategy destroys their good will. I can only assume it's focused on killing old school VPN products. The free tier that we love is a marketing expense. And it’s not even a conversion play.
People are complaining about ~10/user/month -- add basic things that you'd need to manage more than 10 peeps (SAML/SCIM support) and you're talking ~20/user/month. For us, a small sub 200 person company, they immediately lost their chance. We have lots of problems in the security space, some we're willing to spend more than 20/user/month to solve. Legacy network access is not one of them.
Never tried it myself, I only manage small tailnets so the free tier is fine
Given how goddamn terrible Cisco anyconnect is, I hope they succeed.
If they turn evil (unlikely with the current folks there) they’ve written up / open sourced plenty of what got them to this point.
Don’t capture all the value you create. But you should try to capture some.
Securing usernames/passwords and handling second factors etc; is already done so well and it's hard to do.
Having a clear 'this is where we can be secure' stances is what makes me want to trust them more.
But what kind of argument is that, if you are a single individual who wants to signup, I am not going to setup my OIDC servers. That is like saying it is a good idea to run a dedicated linux server in a datacenter under your own management, when all you want is a small static website for your mom+pop store. Sure, you can run your own server and it is all open source, but just overkill.
> already done so well and it's hard to do.
So hard that literally all other websites in the world with a login have implemented it. And tailscale is a VPN-like technology company - if they can't manage to implement a login because it is hard, then I would definitely not accept their offerings.
And if you for whatever reason get locked out of your microsoft account (and I say this as someone who had this happen with a Google account) your are basically locked out of your online life.
I own my own domain for my email address (xxxx@mydomain.com). As long as I can set the MX record of that domain freely, I can always restore access to my email adress no matter what any email provider decides to do or block me for.
Its not hard.
If you don’t feel comfortable doing so: maybe that is telling.
Account issues, recovery, support that can be manipulated, a single breach or bad password that grants access to their admin interfaces, implementing their own 2FA.
And, serious people want SSO anyway, and most people have some kind of authentication they can lean on.
You can make a stodgy password login if you want, or you can run a keycloak yourself.
If you don't want to run an OIDC provider for yourself, why would you want them to?
Genuinely I applaud the idea that they're SSO first, and have as little information as possible to handle things. If you don't like it; well, run your own, run headscale - or, use wireguard another way.
Not every company needs their own login system. I fucking hate it.
If you trust your email provider: Ask them to set up an OIDC provider then.
Email is insecure. I can't be the first person to tell you this.
Multiplying your logins is not more security, it's less in the majority of cases.
Or use a login system you already have.
I honestly don't know how this big dealmaking works but it strikes me that when you take out this big of an obligation that the obligation has a gravity that may drag you in a direction you (or consumers) do not want to go.
Love Tailscale as a product (as does everyone I talk to) but genuinely want to learn more about the trade-offs as usually when we see big dollar signs all we do is celebrate.
When founders raise this much money, it's because there's (1) a lot they want to do and hire for, or (2) they don't want to worry about monetizing the product for a significant period and focus on growth or product development.
You are saying equity is not bonds.
However investors expect to be repaid in the future with control and exhorbitant interest rates (based on risk). VC invests to make money, but that money comes from future equity rounds or IPO.
If you didn't take the VC money (and the business achieved the same growth without the money) then you'd expect you would have been better off by at least the amount invested (investors don't invest with the expectation of only getting their money back).
If the business doesn't succeed then you are on the hook to pay the debt from your equity via liquidation preferences.
VC payment is expectation statistics, but the investors know that game and invest to make money. That money comes from the current equity owners making less in the future.
A few examples come to mind immediately: trading firms/hedge funds often have more capacity than that in their existing strategies; hardware businesses can have substantial up-front costs; companies with high COGS might need that much to just scale at the rate they're already moving, since each unit locks up a bunch of capital until it's sold.
Also note that the benchmark of “efficiency” should be a function of growth, not some absolute standard.
I think the thesis is thought provoking. Not sure yet if it’s worth anything, but it also doesn’t preclude businesses from having massive cashflow.
By definition focusing on things that don't grow your business because you have way too much money in the bank is going to be worse for your business than being forced to focus because you've only got a year of runway.
Took a project I'd been putting off and putting off because I knew it'd eat half a Saturday, and made it a 20-minute affair from signup to having everything done, including adding some devices to the network that I wouldn't even have bothered to try adding on my own.
overall, they still seem to have their heads screwed on straight and have an actual business model, that is also pretty fair - charge enterprises per seat to solve their network identity problems.
anyway, keep up the good work, Avery and co.
I logged a bug about it and the latest versions this seems to have gone away. I also moved away from the mac store variant and into the standalone. Not sure if that helped either.
It's interesting because they have clearly demonstrated a demand for such a thing, but the "just works" pitch is a fantasy, at least today.
TIL this is a thing
> Just use the v6 ULA address that begins with fd7a exclusively.
perfect, this is exactly what I desired
(I'm having an increasingly high number of sad v4 only LAN devices and planned to move to a v4 block that sits way too close to the one Tailscale uses.)
> There's unfortunately no GUI to do this; you'll have to change the Tailscale ACL to disable IPv4.
ah that's why I missed it, thanks!
As I recall, a few tailscale folks contribute to this open source implementation of the “coordination server”. Apparently tailscale management approved it. So this means management at any time can revoke it, and possibly kill off self hosting of the coordination server as the open source clients become incompatible.
What application are you using for that (on top of Tailscale, that is)?
I realize this is a very ironic place to make this statement, but I am utterly exhausted by VC money destroying all of the services I enjoy, like a slow disease spreading through a herd of livestock.
But VC funding works very differently.
This is not an "xor" statement.
Is the new fund raise to enable Tailscale perform these complex tasks or for scaling it?
I've once read few years back that seamless and secure cloud independent computing or cross-cloud system is the next frontier, and it seems it's a legit problem and a business opportunity for security company like Tailscale and Crowdstrike (investor). The record breaking acquisition of Wiz kind of cemented this problem space and the pain points, and it seems that Tailscale is riding on the opportunity [1].
[1]Google to buy Wiz for $32B (845 comments):
Glass half empty customer: OMFG, this is the minimal amount they are going to bleed from us over the next 5 years!
Based customer: this is just a half filled glass, full or empty is just your projection.
> Building the New Internet
(Insert mandatory reference to Silicon Valley here :))
> We think there’s a better way forward. We're calling it identity-first networking.
I would love to see this. Every day I have to stare at YAML files with IP addresses in them is a day I will never get back. I wish cjdns[0] had succeeded already but oh well, now I hope the Tailscale guys will!
1. Immutable Content Naming: In a data-centric system, content is addressed by its name, transcending geographical considerations. This circumvents the vulnerabilities associated with IP addresses, which can be spoofed or manipulated. By employing cryptographic techniques to validate the authenticity of content names, NDN establishes a robust layer of security that underpins the entire architecture.
2. Built-In Data Integrity: NDN employs built-in mechanisms to ensure the integrity of data. Content is signed by publishers and verified by consumers, preventing tampering or unauthorized alterations. This approach effectively mitigates data breaches, as any unauthorized modification is detected and rejected.> NDN has its roots in an earlier project, Content-Centric Networking (CCN), which Van Jacobson first publicly presented in 2006.. NDN applications name data and data names will directly be used in network packet forwarding.. Its premise is that the Internet is primarily used as an information distribution network, which is not a good match for IP, and that the future Internet's "thin waist" should be based on named data rather than numerically addressed hosts.
NDN talk by Van Jacobson at Google (2006): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCZMoY3q2uM
Their CEO has been working with (and supporting) v6 for decades both at the executive level (now) and also as an extremely capable software engineer that I personally met with a few times while we were both engineers at Google doing network measurement.
There are plenty of open source alternatives cropping up[0]. I'm curious to see what Tailscale can do with a lot of resources.
[0]: https://github.com/anderspitman/awesome-tunneling?tab=readme...
Profitability and exit math just got harder
I love the service and am rooting for them - I just don’t get this cash outlay
I can’t wait to learn what I’m missing here
It’s a bit like saying Dropbox is just a GUI on top of TLS.
What tailscale has over it is hype, lots and lots of hype. Also a much more well thought out, and arguably more secure VPN protocol underneath, which is why GP's comment is on point.
Polish costs effort and money and it also really truly saves time and makes for a better product. So that matters.
There may be VPN nerds out there who think there's nothing special happening with Tailscale, but I submit those nerds haven't spent a lot of time dealing with the median, replacement-level VPN configuration prior to Tailscale. I'm a pentester, and so I have had that pleasure. Tailscale is revolutionary compared to what it replaced.
For an individual, heck no. Fortunately, headscale exists for individuals to use.
Well, it is. After all, for a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
That said, I don't really understand the supposed misunderstanding you point out. It seems that dang argues that "the exchange was pleasant and successful." I've never seen someone claim otherwise.
Rather, I've seen it used as an example of how technical users can fail to recognize the complexity inherent in their workflows, and therefore may also fail to see the real-world business value in creating (and selling) simpler interfaces. See also a SMOP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_matter_of_programming
>You are correct that this presents a very good, easy-to-install piece of functionality for Windows users. The Windows shortcomings that you point out are certainly problems, and I think that your software does a good job of overcoming that. (emphasis added.)
They still fail to understand that this is not a Windows or Linux issue but a reliability and ease of use issue. Not to mention the fact that the desktop Linux marketshare was probably less than 1% and therefore irrelevant in this context to begin with.
Us humans are kinda ok at preserving knowledge (and we're getting even better, but not in a good way).
Tailscale did make a donation to WireGuard. They have regularly contributed to wireguard-go, including the complicated GRO/GSO bits.
"Tailscale made a donation during September 2022, as part of their business centered around WireGuard." https://www.wireguard.com/donations/ / https://archive.vn/MMAXO
Well, isn't PUBG a GUI on top of Unreal?
The problem IIRC is that it is the coordination server that decides what is authorised, so if Tailscale was hacked (or otherwise malicious), nodes could get added to your tailnet without explicit authorisation from the tailnet "owner", which is obviously not good. To prevent this, they introduced tailnet-lock, which requires other peers to participate in node authentication: https://tailscale.com/kb/1226/tailnet-lock#how-it-works
that was disappointing
at least the current software is open source, so others can fork it before it closes down on itself and enshittifies.
I'd sell out at $160M, too. I'm happy for them, and sad for everyone else.
Not the server.
headscale is nice, but it's not an official project.
Before, the internet was built to connect places, not people. That made things messy. People had to set up tricky stuff like VPNs and firewalls. Tailscale makes this much easier by using your name or account, not just numbers like IP addresses.
Now, big companies and people at home use Tailscale to keep their computers and apps connected. It works without a lot of setup, and it’s safe. Even people building smart robots and AI are using it.
What’s really good is that Tailscale still helps small users for free, and they try hard not to break anything when they update their tools. If they keep doing that, they can become a very important part of how the internet works in the future.