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
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.