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<[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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<[email protected]> 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! > >
