pastilhasandClaude Opus 5
766c8ee655
"our implementation of the same protocol rather than a wrapper around theirs" was too strong. It is the Tailscale client with our branding, and one real difference: it takes an invite from the server directly. The corrected version is not a weaker claim, it is a more specific one. "Our own implementation" invites the question of whether it is trustworthy and whether it keeps up; "the Tailscale client, our branding, and it takes an invite directly" answers both — it is their client, so it is as good as their client, and the thing it adds is the thing that was hard. The reason it is hard stays in, since it is what makes the difference worth naming: the official app has to be talked into using a server that is not Tailscale's, and that is where people abandon self-hosted headscale. And it still says there are no desktop apps of our own, now with what to do instead. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>