On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Mike Perry <mikeperry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually there are several large-userbase companies that want to
include Tor by default in their product, either as a client, a relay,
or a bridge. ÂUnfortunately, the only answer we have for them in the
immediate term is "For the love of goddess don't do that, you'll
destroy Tor".
Our immediate concern is making it possible to support at least a
fraction of one of these userbases in either the relay or the bridge
roll. The relay role will require a significant update to Tor's
directory mechanisms, and we are trying to drive academic research
forward in these areas. The bridge roll may be more immediately
doable, but we're not sure that bridgedb wouldn't just fall over yet
either.
Thanks, Mike. That's probably the biggest flaw in my bigger thinking effort. Tor is, after all, only at version 0.2 isn't it? Sigh. Maybe I am just 2 or 3 years ahead of reality, where/when Tor could run reliably and without making a mess of it.
But then again, if that is true, then what better time to plan for it than now, eh? :)
So if no one else is putting their hat in the ring yet to convince Google to include a default Tor relay or bridge in Chrome OS (in 2-3 years) then I would be glad to carry the ball on that one in addition to doing the same at Microsoft for Windows 2013. I've no experience doing this, but it can't be rocket science to talk to the right people and find out what it would take to reach a desirable, shared goal.
--
JulieÂ