6,160 karma · joined July 20, 2016
Preemptive scaling never really works and most projects never scale enough to warrant more than one server (unless you write very inefficient code).
I get the other points, but most servers I encountered don't have these fine grained controls because doing manual work on them only happens for debugging or fixing issues.
And the password doesn't need to be shared with sth like Tailscale.
Tracking actions is a good part though, I wonder if you can still track which tailscale user was responsible for that root login.
And as a European, I'm very glad that's the case. I know, we're still not close to compliance with GDPR, but it has changed the privacy discussion more than any other part.
But I don't think it's predatory. It clearly worked for cloudflare and seems to work for Tailscale (they openly said they're using the same strategy). It would be predatory if others couldn't match that, but I'd argue many competitors could offer free plans for small websites if they wanted to.
In the end he's still a CEO and the others are his employees, not his friends. For that, he doesn't appear to be a terrible boss.
But I've yet to see a company where no one ever needs to ssh into a server. Using these ACLs to give a contractor access (and even visibility) to only the servers they're supposed to see is probably a big advantage over OpenVPN, where a contractor automatically becomes part of the inner network and can theoretically see all machines?
But then again, I'm not sure there are many people who'd worry about that.
So what's the recommendation here to stay safe but still have a failover? Keep ssh enabled for only one user (with sudo rights) and a key that's stored at some secure location?
I guess companies where there's not even any identity management, securing your network via tailscale is not your primary concern.