Pros of headscale

• More comprehensive Tailscale-compatible server implementation
• Supports multiple users and namespaces
• Offers OIDC integration for authentication

Cons of headscale

• More complex setup and configuration
• Requires additional infrastructure (e.g., database)
• May have a steeper learning curve for new users

Code comparison

headscale (Go):

func (h *Headscale) CreatePreAuthKey(ctx context.Context, user *User, reusable bool, ephemeral bool, expiration *time.Time) (*PreAuthKey, error) {
    key := GenerateKey()
    preAuthKey := PreAuthKey{
        User:       user,
        Key:        key,
        Reusable:   reusable,
        Ephemeral:  ephemeral,
        Expiration: expiration,
    }
    // ... (additional logic)
}

wg-ui (JavaScript):

async function createClient(name) {
  const { publicKey, privateKey } = await generateKeyPair();
  const client = {
    name,
    publicKey,
    privateKey,
    allowedIPs: [],
  };
  clients.push(client);
  await saveConfig();
  return client;
}

The code snippets show different approaches: headscale implements a more complex pre-authentication system, while wg-ui focuses on simpler client creation and management.

Pros of Subspace

• More comprehensive VPN solution with built-in DNS management and email notifications
• Supports multiple VPN protocols (WireGuard, OpenVPN, IKEv2)
• Includes a mobile app for easier management on-the-go

Cons of Subspace

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Requires more system resources due to additional features
• Less focused on WireGuard specifically, which may not be ideal for users only interested in that protocol

Code Comparison

wg-ui:

func (s *Server) CreateUser(w http.ResponseWriter, r *http.Request) {
    var user User
    err := json.NewDecoder(r.Body).Decode(&user)
    if err != nil {
        http.Error(w, err.Error(), http.StatusBadRequest)
        return
    }
    // ... (user creation logic)
}

Subspace:

func (h *Handler) CreateUser(c echo.Context) error {
    u := new(models.User)
    if err := c.Bind(u); err != nil {
        return echo.NewHTTPError(http.StatusBadRequest, err.Error())
    }
    // ... (user creation logic)
    return c.JSON(http.StatusCreated, u)
}

Both projects use Go for backend implementation, but Subspace utilizes the Echo framework for handling HTTP requests, while wg-ui uses the standard net/http package.

Pros of algo

• More comprehensive VPN solution, including server setup and management
• Supports multiple VPN protocols (WireGuard, IPsec/IKEv2)
• Includes additional security features like DNS-based ad blocking

Cons of algo

• More complex setup process
• Requires more technical knowledge to configure and maintain
• Less user-friendly interface for end-users

Code comparison

algo (setup script excerpt):

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e

SCRIPT_DIR="$( cd "$( dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}" )" && pwd )"
cd "${SCRIPT_DIR}"

# Check for dependencies
if ! command -v python3 >/dev/null 2>&1; then
  echo "Python 3 is not installed. Please install it and try again."
  exit 1
fi

wg-ui (main.go excerpt):

func main() {
    flag.Parse()

    if *version {
        fmt.Printf("wg-ui version %s\n", Version)
        return
    }

    log.Printf("Starting wg-ui %s", Version)
}

The code comparison shows that algo uses a bash script for setup, while wg-ui is written in Go. This reflects the difference in complexity and approach between the two projects.

Pros of Firezone

• More comprehensive VPN solution with built-in authentication and user management
• Supports multiple VPN protocols (WireGuard, OpenVPN)
• Actively maintained with regular updates and a growing community

Cons of Firezone

• More complex setup and configuration compared to wg-ui
• Requires more system resources due to its broader feature set
• Steeper learning curve for administrators new to VPN management

Code Comparison

wg-ui (JavaScript):

const createConfig = async (req, res) => {
  const { name, email } = req.body;
  const config = await generateWireGuardConfig(name, email);
  res.json({ config });
};

Firezone (Elixir):

def create_device(attrs \\ %{}) do
  %Device{}
  |> Device.changeset(attrs)
  |> Repo.insert()
  |> case do
    {:ok, device} -> {:ok, device}
    {:error, changeset} -> {:error, changeset}
  end
end

While both projects aim to simplify WireGuard VPN management, Firezone offers a more feature-rich solution with multi-protocol support and built-in user management. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and resource requirements. wg-ui provides a simpler, more focused approach to WireGuard configuration, which may be preferable for smaller deployments or users seeking a lightweight solution.

Pros of wg-access-server

• More active development with recent updates and contributions
• Built-in OIDC support for authentication
• Includes a CLI tool for easier management

Cons of wg-access-server

• Less intuitive UI compared to wg-ui
• Requires more configuration and setup
• Limited documentation for advanced features

Code Comparison

wg-access-server:

func (s *Server) Start() error {
    s.wg.Add(2)
    go s.startHTTPServer()
    go s.startUDPServer()
    return nil
}

wg-ui:

async function startServer() {
    await initializeDatabase();
    app.listen(config.port, () => {
        console.log(`Server started on port ${config.port}`);
    });
}

The code snippets show different approaches to starting the server. wg-access-server uses goroutines for concurrent HTTP and UDP server initialization, while wg-ui follows a more straightforward asynchronous approach in JavaScript.

Both projects aim to provide a user-friendly interface for managing WireGuard VPN configurations, but they differ in implementation details and feature sets. wg-access-server offers more advanced features and authentication options, while wg-ui focuses on simplicity and ease of use. The choice between the two depends on specific requirements and user preferences.

Pros of CasaOS

• Comprehensive home server solution with a wide range of features
• User-friendly interface for managing various services and applications
• Active development and community support

Cons of CasaOS

• More complex setup and configuration compared to wg-ui
• Potentially higher resource usage due to its broader feature set
• May include unnecessary features for users only interested in WireGuard management

Code Comparison

While a direct code comparison is not particularly relevant due to the different scopes of these projects, we can highlight some key differences in their implementation:

wg-ui (Go):

func (s *Server) CreateClient(ctx context.Context, client *Client) error {
    // WireGuard-specific client creation logic
}

CasaOS (Go):

func (s *System) InstallApp(ctx context.Context, app *App) error {
    // Broader application installation logic
}

CasaOS offers a more extensive API for managing various aspects of a home server, while wg-ui focuses specifically on WireGuard VPN management. The code structures reflect their respective scopes and purposes.