Re: [tor-talk] What would Tor v1.0 look like?

[adrelanos <adrelanos@xxxxxxxxxx>]

georgeofthejungle:
> Hello,
> 
> I've been using Tor for many years now (when Tor was hosted by
> EFF), and I love how fast and far Tor is progressing, as well as
> other Tor Project projects (e.g., TorBrowser and TorButton). I've
> always wondered what it would take for Tor to be called v1.0, e.g.,
> how different would that Tor be vs. the current Tor?
> 
> If anyone is interested in this topic, I'd love to read all input.
> E.g., would Tor v1.0 be considerably 'faster' (unless 'speed' more
> an issue of number of nodes)? Would Tor use UDP? Would Tor v1.0 be
> more secure (I know that's an awfully open-ended question, sorry!)?
> Would Tor be (close-to) unblockable (e.g. by the Chinese firewall)
> though use of bridges?  Would Hidden Services be more robust in
> terms of security and anonymity [0], and, would surfing to them be
> 'faster'?. . . ? . . . ?
> 
> coderman wrote about his pie-in-the-sky Tor v2.0 [0], and it
> sounded pretty bad ass, even tough I probably misunderstood most of
> his technical writing.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> [0] 
> https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2013-March/027539.html
>
> 
[1]
> https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2012-March/023615.html
>
> 
These are interesting questions. Software versioning is difficult. Many
developers seem to forget, that version numbers are for users, not for
developers. Food for thought. [1] [2]

Many free software is still 0.something, while development still
finished/stalled for years, the software is very stable and used by
thousands of people for years. And on the other hand Mozilla, Internet
Explorer and Opera are rushing version numbers because some users think
a higher version number must be better.

Using the date instead of a version number doesn't make much sense
either. I found one comment interesting:
"So, do you have Windows September 12, 2008 yet?"
"No, but do you have Internet Explorer October 9, 2004 yet?"

I found the Liberte Linux versioning simple and useful, 2012.3.

Tor being 1.0... Tor does everything claimed in "Tor: The
Second-Generation Onion Router" design? Well, time to call it 1.0? Or
perhaps not... Does having small version numbers attract more
contributors and founding?

I'd rather look forward seeing something like "Tor: The
Third-Generation Onion Router", Mixminion / Remailer (high latency)
and alpha-mixing [3] getting implemented.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning
[2]
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/02/whats-in-a-version-number-anyway.html
[3] http://freehaven.net/doc/alpha-mixing/alpha-mixing.pdf
_______________________________________________
tor-talk mailing list
tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk