Pros of Shadowsocks-rust

• Written in Rust, offering better performance and memory safety
• Lightweight and efficient, consuming fewer system resources
• Supports various encryption methods and protocols

Cons of Shadowsocks-rust

• Less user-friendly interface compared to Lantern
• Requires more technical knowledge to set up and configure
• Limited built-in features for circumventing censorship

Code Comparison

Shadowsocks-rust (server configuration):

let server = ServerConfig::new(
    "0.0.0.0:8388".parse().unwrap(),
    "password".to_string(),
    CipherType::Aes256Gcm,
    None,
);

Lantern (proxy configuration):

proxy := &httputil.ReverseProxy{
    Director: func(req *http.Request) {
        req.URL.Scheme = "https"
        req.URL.Host = "example.com"
    },
}

Both projects aim to provide secure and private internet access, but they differ in their approach and implementation. Shadowsocks-rust focuses on a lightweight, efficient proxy solution with strong encryption, while Lantern offers a more comprehensive censorship circumvention tool with additional features and a user-friendly interface. The choice between the two depends on the user's technical expertise and specific requirements for privacy and censorship evasion.

Pros of v2ray-core

• More flexible and customizable with a modular architecture
• Supports a wider range of protocols and transport methods
• Better performance and lower resource usage in most scenarios

Cons of v2ray-core

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Less user-friendly for non-technical users
• Fewer built-in features for circumventing censorship

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type User struct {
    Level uint32
    Email string
}

type Account struct {
    Id      string
    AlterId uint32
}

Lantern (Go):

type Client struct {
    ProxyURL      string
    FrontedURL    string
    DirectURL     string
    CloudConfigCA string
}

The code snippets show that v2ray-core focuses on user management and account structures, while Lantern emphasizes client configuration and proxy settings. This reflects their different approaches to providing VPN and proxy services.

v2ray-core offers more granular control over user accounts and access levels, which aligns with its flexibility and customization. Lantern's code suggests a simpler setup process with predefined proxy configurations, catering to its user-friendly approach.

Pros of Trojan

• Lightweight and efficient protocol design
• Strong focus on security and anti-detection measures
• Supports multiple platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, iOS)

Cons of Trojan

• Less user-friendly interface compared to Lantern
• Smaller community and fewer resources for support
• Limited built-in features beyond basic proxy functionality

Code Comparison

Trojan (server configuration):

{
    "run_type": "server",
    "local_addr": "0.0.0.0",
    "local_port": 443,
    "remote_addr": "127.0.0.1",
    "remote_port": 80,
    "password": ["password1"],
    "ssl": {
        "cert": "/path/to/certificate.crt",
        "key": "/path/to/private.key"
    }
}

Lantern (client configuration):

addr: 127.0.0.1:8787
uiaddr: 127.0.0.1:16823
proxyall: false
systray: true
startup: false
configdir: /Users/username/.lantern
frontedservers:
  - xxx.yyyyy.com
  - zzz.yyyyy.com

Both projects aim to provide secure and censorship-resistant internet access, but they differ in their approach and target audience. Trojan focuses on a lightweight, protocol-based solution with strong anti-detection measures, while Lantern offers a more user-friendly experience with additional features like peer-to-peer networking and automatic server selection.

Pros of free

• Provides a larger variety of free VPN and proxy servers
• More frequently updated with new server information
• Simpler setup process for users

Cons of free

• Less focus on privacy and security features
• Lacks a dedicated client application
• May have less reliable server uptime

Code comparison

free:

ss://YWVzLTI1Ni1nY206WEtGS2wyclVMaklwNzQ=@172.99.190.92:8009#github.com/freefq%20-%20%E7%BE%8E%E5%9B%BD%20%201
vmess://eyJhZGQiOiIxNzIuNjcuMTk5LjM0IiwiYWlkIjoiMCIsImhvc3QiOiJ3d3cuMTcwNzAxMzAueHl6IiwiaWQiOiI5NDZiYTVkZi01NzcxLTQ4NzMtYTNjYi04OTIxYTMwZDliY2UiLCJuZXQiOiJ3cyIsInBhdGgiOiIvIiwicG9ydCI6IjQ0MyIsInBzIjoiZ2l0aHViLmNvbS9mcmVlZnEgLSDnvo7lm70gIDIiLCJ0bHMiOiJ0bHMiLCJ0eXBlIjoibm9uZSIsInYiOiIyIn0=

Lantern:

func (c *Client) connectToProxy(ctx context.Context) (net.Conn, error) {
    dialTimeout := c.getDialTimeout()
    dialer := &net.Dialer{Timeout: dialTimeout}
    return dialer.DialContext(ctx, "tcp", c.ProxyAddr)
}

The code snippets show different approaches: free provides server configurations, while Lantern focuses on client-side connection handling.