windows tor

[Peter]

I'm not complaining about it, I'm just saying, if you want widespread
adoption, a kernel driver is the way to go.  And moreover, a kernel
driver is easier to write and support than a VM.

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Flamsmark<flamsmark at gmail.com> wrote:
> Then perhaps complaining about the direction of the work that many others
> have done pro bono is a little premature, no?
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 01:18, Peter <necedemalis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Heh, well, I tell you what.  You send me a hundred thousand dollars,
>> and after the check clears I'll write you a great windows kernel
>> driver.  Otherwise, I'm broke, my life is a living hell, and I already
>> have several projects I work on out of the goodness of my heart, so,
>> I'm sorry.
>>
>> Thanks and good luck.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:13 AM, Flamsmark<flamsmark at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Why not just a Windows kernel driver? Because it hasn't been written
>> > yet.
>> > You're welcome to help write a kernel driver, or a VPN host or whatever
>> > else
>> > you think is the next logical step to improving Tor. However, remember
>> > the
>> > version number: 0.2.1.*. Tor is not a 'finished' piece of software. It
>> > is
>> > not feature-complete; it does not implement everything that's either
>> > desired
>> > or required for ideal use. However, right now, much of the development
>> > effort is not spent making it easier for clients to use. There's a
>> > feeling
>> > that it's currently 'good enough' that those who really need to use Tor
>> > will
>> > be able to follow the instructions and get it working. If you don't
>> > agree
>> > with that emphasis, again, it's your prerogative to build those feature
>> > that
>> > you think are most important.
>> > We all look forward to seeing your contributions!
>
>