Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
view the rest of the comments
Yup, I don't know if that is OP's intention, but I would agree myself with the complaint that "Tailscale is a business"
The way I see it, if it's a business it must generate revenue (either now or down the road), and that is enough to have me worried. I do have a Tailscale registration, and the way they approach email communication is already a yellow flag to me (too many ad emails)
That's not really a justifiable reason, though. The Linux Foundation provides grants and scholarships to the open source community, but they do that through private equity business. So transitively, many open source projects are funded by businesses looking to capitalize on that innovation. Do you consider that when pulling from a git repository? No, that's overbearing. Additionally Headscale is in part maintained by a Tailscale employee. That would surely create a conflict of interest given Tailscale is solely interested in generating revenue.
To you it isn't, but to some of us it is. For me the standard business cycle is not acceptable because I almost inevitably end up under the bus.
The Linux Foundation isn't a comparable example for me since it's a non-profit. As a result it isn't subject to the same market pressures for-profit businesses do, let alone VC-funded ones.
At this point, with everything I know and have experienced about the economy, politics and the world, I am trying to avoid depending on for-profit businesses as much as I can. I know how businesses operate, I know why they operate the way they do, I know what dynamics push them in the directions they go and I'm tired of being run over by the bus. If I ever form a business myself it would either be a non-profit, or a worker co-op, or both, as this will signal everyone who knows what I know what the direction of this business would be about.
Firstly, I'm not trying to start a flame war with commenters, I genuinely just disagree on something and some people are getting a little hot under the collar by it. The Linux Foundation comment I made because ultimately VC touches more than people think. Even its something that isn't directly tied to VC, that money filters through groups like LF which is a non-profit and most would argue a quite legitimate organization. The point is there really is no separation or clear line of demarcation on what is "good" funding and what is "bad" funding.
I understand and I disagree. A demarcation emerges from the goal of the funding and its effects. For me, one example of bad funding is funding that drives user acquisition at unsustainable prices by a firm that is also significantly controlled by the funding source. This is predominantly what VC-funding goes to. VC-funding that goes to a non-profit that the VC has no control over, where the VC can't and does not demand financial return from, is not bad funding in my books. Corporate funding doing the same thing is also not bad funding. Government funding often has the least strings attached as it does not demand direct return, and this also is not bad funding. To top that off citizens can exercise control over government funding via the democratic process, unlike corporate or VC funding, where the vast majority have zero control, and are owed no accountability by the businesses.
Historically, Accel has never pushed acquisition. On the contrary, they do the opposite. Its why they VC fund over 300 companies, but you've never heard of them. That's not to say they couldn't, but they haven't ever acted in that manner previously so logically it would be safe to assume that trend continues with Tailscale. I think that's important here: its not about ability its about intent. If as a organization you give funding to another organization (even non-profits) you exercise at least some control over them as they are dependent on that money to function. This is actually a point other commenters have made in regards to Headscale. Headscale is maintained by a Tailscale employee. As they fund him personally, they can exercise some control over him as he depends on that money/employment. Again, even their comments circle back to ability vs intent. Tailscale could influence their employee, but would they? That's where a lot of the VC argument goes. Its just speculation as what a group could do, not what they would do.
“The trend” is making money no matter what. That means they’re gonna screw you over eventually, the countdown has already begun, and it’s just a matter of time
Is there an actual example you can provide of Accel doing that or is this more an emotionally driven statement you have?
The specific company does not, in fact, matter because VCs have the same set of incentives in the end
So, even if Accel doesn't do that, which they haven't done that, they are still guilty of doing that. Ok, yeah. That's some solid irrefutable logic you got going there. I think I'll go back to arguing this with commenters who are a little less emotional and more grounded in real world points about the topic.
Not what I said. I in fact said the specific company doesn’t matter because all VC money seeks to make more money and the easiest way to do that is parasitically jacking up costs to customers every quarter no matter what until the company collapses. Then rinse and repeat, making money each time. Does this screw people over? Absolutely. Are there legal consequences? Nope, so they can do it as many times as they want, forever
So... if all VC money does, then you can provide an example of Accel doing this... right? So, go ahead and do that now.
What you’re apparently not getting is that even if it’s not happening right now, it will in the end. What they happen to be doing or not doing right now doesn’t matter. Look at the rules of the system
So.. even if Accel doesn't do that, which they haven't done that, they are still guilty of doing that. You have no argument, just strong feelings.
You haven’t accurately summarized my argument in a single comment and are using strawmen
Ok, this is your summarized argument: Accel is going to gut the company and run it into the ground because that's what they do, but they haven't ever done that, but they could, so they will, so that's the same as doing it, although they haven't, but it will happen in the end because that's what they do, but they don't.
Its not a strawman if what you say is in fact a weakly constructed idea. Its just a weakly constructed idea then. Its nothing but vague generalizations and "what ifs" you posted. Let me just put it this way: evidence or stfu.