windows tor

[Flamsmark]

'Widespread adoption' is not the current sort-term aim. While we all think
that fast, universal, anonymous internet access would be a good thing, we
simply can't support that right now. The volunteer network of relays isn't
that big. Even now, Tor has trouble dealing with the network load. If Tor
were to become more popular with users, without seeing a commensurate
increase in the relay capacity, that would massively reduce the
functionality of the network. Right now, It's important to make
tor available for the most at-risk users: those in oppressive
regimes, whistle-blowers,  undercover journalists and so on. After that, the
priority is on improving the structure of the system, not on further
usability.
While I can see where you're coming from in suggesting that a kernel driver
is better, the reality is more complex. Because the primary development
effort is on the core Tor software, a VM requires a relatively small
development effort at present. One barely even needs to be able to code to
construct a VM that uses existing software: it's mostly an exercise in
implementing best-practices. Moreover, a VM is actually easier to support
right now than a driver. A driver would need a coder dedicated to
maintaining it. A VM on the other hand needs only a geek, and can easily
update to the latest versions of Tor (and supporting applications) when they
are released.


On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 01:23, Peter <necedemalis at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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!
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/attachments/20090813/6ba771b5/attachment.htm>