Thanks for answering, Kris.
I get that you and the people at iX are trying to focus on the scope of development. I’m not a software engineer, but I am an engineer, and I do understand scope creep and the geometric progression of problems with every new function.
That said, the possibility of independently connecting two NAS systems, regardless of network infrastructure in between, has been very useful. Specifically, for small businesses trying to adopt a safe and sober (not to say cheap) IT infrastructure with what’s available.
I have built and maintained numerous installations of FreeNAS and TrueNAS over the years in a country without a second-hand market for IT hardware for lots of design, video/audio production, and architecture studios. In many of these I worked as an enthusiast or volunteer as a favor to owners or colleagues, building my toolset of dependable and efficient solutions.
Unfortunately, TrueNAS is not a good hypervisor yet. It lacks flexibility and transparency of network configuration and many other things that are indispensable. Developing such an infrastructure is, in my opinion, going to be a lot more demanding and redundant. The same for reviewing apps written or adapted by other developers (as is evident with Tailscale).
TrueNAS has a main differentiating advantage in transparently working with ZFS tools, primarily with snapshots and replication, which other competing solutions lack, although they are based on the same underlying code (OpenZFS). For me, OpenVPN server/client was an integral part of those tools! All other features are just window dressing. Why, then, invest so much in virtualisation and app ecosystem?
I guess that the mentality of “doing more with less” is what is yanking my chain, so to speak. Ever smaller teams (of software developers, architectural engineers, graphics designers…) having to come up with new features or products for the sake of growing profit or visibility is ruining our professions.
