As an Arch user I hate these memes. Guys, the only difference between distros is effectively the versions of packages you’re getting, and what the defaults packages and configs are. In Ubuntu you are completely free to have a very minimal i3 setup (I did for several years!) while in Arch you can use some bloated Gnome UI. This “Arch is fast and Ubuntu is slow” really isn’t true if you compare Arch-Gnome vs Ubuntu-Gnome, or Arch-i3 vs Ubuntu-i3.

Pretty sure MS would name theirs “Internet Manager 6 Extreme Copilot”.

I never understood why people use Tailscale

I use it for the NAT busting and direct connections. This means that my devices can talk directly to each other, even when there’s NAT and dynamic IPs sitting between the devices with no port forwarding. This is not possible with Wireguard alone; usually you end up with a hub and spoke network model.

As for them man-in-the-middling, the client is open source (for Android and Linux at least) and traffic is end-to-end encrypted. If you don’t want to trust them with distributing the keys (completely valid concern) then it’s possible to configure things such that you must sign the keys of clients yourself for your devices to trust them (see Tailnet Lock).

In my case, because I like self-hosting, I self-host an open-source coordination server called Headscale. So in at least my circumstance I really am only using my infrastructure and open-source code.