Backrest has been working well for my use-case. I appreciate having a UI to manage backup configuration (exclusions, etc.), and the command hooks have been useful when combined with Uptime Kuma to let me know if a backup fails or is otherwise missed.
I've seen no indications of this supposed feature in my own experience or other sources. The article does not provide any evidence to support its claims.
I'm happy to see this feature added. It's a feature that I didn't quite realize I was missing, but now that I see it described, I can understand exactly how I'll put it to use. Great work as always by the Tailscale team.
I've found that using Tailscale on my Android phone became worlds more reliable (as far as the issues you've described) once I stopped using a custom DNS resolver on my Tailnet.
Immich is a great software package, and I recommend it. Sadly, Google can still flag sites based on domain name patterns, blocking content behind auth or even on your LAN.
I'm in a similar boat. Google's false flag is causing issues for my family members who use Chrome, even for internal services that aren't publicly exposed, just because they're on related subdomains.
It's scary how much control Google has over which content people can access on the web - or even on their local network!
I'm fighting this right now on my own domain. Google marked my family Immich instance as dangerous, essentially blocking access from Chrome to all services hosted on the same domain.
I know that I can bypass the warning, but the photo album I sent to my mother-in-law is now effectively inaccessible.
In my opinion Tailscale is the realistic option for most people. The author is familiar with Tailscale having worked with it previously, but my interpretation is that he wanted to get more familiar with the underlying Wireguard technology.
It's interesting how confirmation bias can lead to a case based on a faulty premise. The objection always seemed like a long shot. I wonder if additional research will find anything of interest. Of course, the suggestion that the drug is "safe" is not at all accurate, since it is intended to be deadly to the child.