Re: [tor-dev] Tor Launcher settings UI feedback request

[adrelanos <adrelanos@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Runa A. Sandvik:
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Andrew F <andrewfriedman101@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Users who need these connections will have them and those that don't,
>> probably won't know what they are and thats ok.
> 
> I disagree. The Tor help desk sees a ton of requests from users saying
> that Tor is unable to connect, and the simple fix is to give them a
> bridge or two. Not all users know what they need to connect, and not
> all users will know the difference between bridge, obfs2, and obfs3.

Having non-pluggable transports bridges while there are flashproxies and
obfs3 seems redundant to me. It's very difficult to write appropriate
documentation to justify use of regular bridges (only reason: there are
more of them, less times you get a "we currently don't have any") while
there is obfs3. Same for obfs2, why bother if there is obfs3?

I think the root cause of this problem is, that there is no mechanism
for bridges about available updates and no easy (enough) way to update
themselves to the latest pluggable transport.

So I think the best way is to abandon non-pluggable transports bridges
and to upgrade them. Is that planed?
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev