Would you care to rebut the arguments the blog post puts forth, such as argue that wireguard is actually harder to configure than IPSec or that the protocol is actually less trustworthy?

IPsec’s design era, implementation size... really nothing about the thing is even vaguely comparable.

Also: wireguard is free and open source software. So what precisely are we (people advocating for it) selling? We paid a hell of a lot more than the cost of an OpenVPN AS license so that everyone could get a macOS client, for free. I don’t make a dime off of you using wireguard.

So far 100% of the deployed OpenVPN I’ve seen has had bad crypto. Wireguard just categorically doesn’t have that problem.

Oh the problem definitely exists. And it shows in the fact that only more sophisticated teams use VPN.

And when they have to use VPN, too many teams use OpenVPN because it's seemingly the easiest to use. Also there are scripts like the amazing Algo that make it easier to run your own VPN server.

But this has historically been a totally unsolved problem from the perspective of usability.

I look at it as the difference between PGP and keybase. PGP was always too complex to use, and that's a bad security design. Keybase is a lot easier to use (and Signal even easier).

Wireguard is like that. Although I haven't used it yet, the configurations seem like "really? that's it? there's got to be more to it"

Stated with such confidence... Clearly you've never dug into the internals of OpenVPN.