[or-cvs] r21781: {projects} some touchups based on initial feedback. more overhauling ne (projects/articles)

[Roger Dingledine <arma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Author: arma
Date: 2010-03-02 05:47:59 +0000 (Tue, 02 Mar 2010)
New Revision: 21781

Modified:
   projects/articles/circumvention-features.html
   projects/articles/circumvention-features.tex
   projects/articles/circumvention-features.txt
Log:
some touchups based on initial feedback. more overhauling needed?


Modified: projects/articles/circumvention-features.html
===================================================================
--- projects/articles/circumvention-features.html	2010-03-02 01:06:53 UTC (rev 21780)
+++ projects/articles/circumvention-features.html	2010-03-02 05:47:59 UTC (rev 21781)
@@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
 This article lays out ten features you should consider when evaluating
 a circumvention tool. The goal isn't to advocate for any specific tool,
 but to point out what kind of tools are useful for different situations.
+I've chosen the order of features based on ease of presentation; so you
+shouldn't conclude the first feature is the most critical.
 </p>
 
 <p>
@@ -51,7 +53,7 @@
 <h3>1. Diverse set of users</h3>
 
 <p>
-One of the first questions you should ask when looking at a circumvention
+One of the simplest questions you can ask when looking at a circumvention
 tool is who else uses it. A wide variety of users means that if somebody
 finds out you are using the software, they can't conclude much about
 why you're using it. A privacy tool like Tor has many different classes
@@ -181,7 +183,7 @@
 to anybody. Historically, any crypto design that has a lot of secret
 parts has turned out to be less safe than its designers thought.
 Similarly, in the case of secret designs for circumvention tools,
-the only groups examining the tool are its original developers and the
+the only groups examining the tool are its original developers and its
 attackers; other developers and users who could help to make it better
 and more sustainable are left out.
 </p>
@@ -357,7 +359,7 @@
 <p>
 The flip side of the performance question is flexibility. Many systems
 ensure good speed by limiting what their users can do. While Psiphon
-prevents you from reaching sites that they haven't manually vetted yet,
+prevents you from reaching sites that they haven't manually vetted,
 Ultrareach and Freegate actually actively censor which destination
 websites you're allowed to reach so they can keep their bandwidth costs
 down. Tor, by contrast, lets you access any protocol and destination,
@@ -384,7 +386,7 @@
 
 <p>
 Then you need to consider the tradeoffs that come with each approach.
-First, which operating systems are supported? Psiphon wins here too
+First, which operating systems are supported? Psiphon does well here too
 by not requiring any extra client software. Ultrareach and Freegate
 are so specialized that they only work on Windows, whereas Tor and its
 accompanying software can run pretty much everywhere. Next,

Modified: projects/articles/circumvention-features.tex
===================================================================
--- projects/articles/circumvention-features.tex	2010-03-02 01:06:53 UTC (rev 21780)
+++ projects/articles/circumvention-features.tex	2010-03-02 05:47:59 UTC (rev 21781)
@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
 This article lays out ten features you should consider when evaluating
 a circumvention tool. The goal isn't to advocate for any specific tool,
 but to point out what kind of tools are useful for different situations.
+I've chosen the order of features based on ease of presentation; so you
+shouldn't conclude the first feature is the most critical.
 
 One caveat to start out: I'm an inventor and developer of a tool called
 Tor that is used both for privacy and for circumvention. While my bias
@@ -58,7 +60,7 @@
 
 \section{Diverse set of users}
 
-One of the first questions you should ask when looking at a circumvention
+One of the simplest questions you can ask when looking at a circumvention
 tool is who else uses it. A wide variety of users means that if somebody
 finds out you are using the software, they can't conclude much about
 why you're using it. A privacy tool like Tor has many different classes
@@ -163,7 +165,7 @@
 anybody. Historically, any crypto design that has a lot of secret parts
 has turned out to be less safe than its designers thought. Similarly,
 in the case of secret designs for circumvention tools, the only groups
-examining the tool are its original developers and the attackers;
+examining the tool are its original developers and its attackers;
 other developers and users who could help to make it better and more
 sustainable are left out.
 
@@ -306,7 +308,7 @@
 
 The flip side of the performance question is flexibility. Many systems
 ensure good speed by limiting what their users can do. While Psiphon
-prevents you from reaching sites that they haven't manually vetted yet,
+prevents you from reaching sites that they haven't manually vetted,
 Ultrareach and Freegate actually actively censor which destination
 websites you're allowed to reach so they can keep their bandwidth costs
 down. Tor, by contrast, lets you access any protocol and destination,
@@ -329,7 +331,7 @@
 or using our email autoresponder that lets you download Tor via Gmail.
 
 Then you need to consider the tradeoffs that come with each
-approach. First, which operating systems are supported? Psiphon wins here
+approach. First, which operating systems are supported? Psiphon does well here
 too by not requiring any extra client software. Ultrareach and Freegate
 are so specialized that they only work on Windows, whereas Tor and its
 accompanying software can run pretty much everywhere. Next, consider

Modified: projects/articles/circumvention-features.txt
===================================================================
--- projects/articles/circumvention-features.txt	2010-03-02 01:06:53 UTC (rev 21780)
+++ projects/articles/circumvention-features.txt	2010-03-02 05:47:59 UTC (rev 21781)
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@
 This article lays out ten features you should consider when evaluating
 a circumvention tool. The goal isn't to advocate for any specific tool,
 but to point out what kind of tools are useful for different situations.
+I've chosen the order of features based on ease of presentation; so you
+shouldn't conclude the first feature is the most critical.
 
 One caveat to start out: I'm an inventor and developer of a tool
 called Tor (torproject.org) that is used both for privacy and for
@@ -39,7 +41,7 @@
 
 1. Diverse set of users
 
-One of the first questions you should ask when looking at a circumvention
+One of the simplest questions you can ask when looking at a circumvention
 tool is who else uses it. A wide variety of users means that if somebody
 finds out you are using the software, they can't conclude much about
 why you're using it. A privacy tool like Tor has many different classes
@@ -147,7 +149,7 @@
 to anybody. Historically, any crypto design that has a lot of secret
 parts has turned out to be less safe than its designers thought.
 Similarly, in the case of secret designs for circumvention tools,
-the only groups examining the tool are its original developers and the
+the only groups examining the tool are its original developers and its
 attackers; other developers and users who could help to make it better
 and more sustainable are left out.
 
@@ -292,7 +294,7 @@
 
 The flip side of the performance question is flexibility. Many systems
 ensure good speed by limiting what their users can do. While Psiphon
-prevents you from reaching sites that they haven't manually vetted yet,
+prevents you from reaching sites that they haven't manually vetted,
 Ultrareach and Freegate actually actively censor which destination
 websites you're allowed to reach so they can keep their bandwidth costs
 down. Tor, by contrast, lets you access any protocol and destination,
@@ -315,7 +317,7 @@
 or using our email autoresponder that lets you download Tor via Gmail.
 
 Then you need to consider the tradeoffs that come with each approach.
-First, which operating systems are supported? Psiphon wins here too
+First, which operating systems are supported? Psiphon does well here too
 by not requiring any extra client software. Ultrareach and Freegate
 are so specialized that they only work on Windows, whereas Tor and its
 accompanying software can run pretty much everywhere. Next,