Pros of gfwlist

• Widely used and recognized standard for filtering Chinese internet censorship
• Regularly updated by community contributors
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into various tools and applications

Cons of gfwlist

• Limited to URL-based filtering, which may not cover all censorship techniques
• Requires manual updates or additional scripts to stay current
• May include false positives or outdated entries

Code comparison

gfwlist:

||example.com
||example.net
@@||whitelist.example.org

fancyss:

#!/bin/sh
# shadowsocks script for AM380 merlin firmware
# by sadoneli & qcasey
source /koolshare/scripts/base.sh

Summary

gfwlist is a community-maintained list of URLs blocked in China, while fancyss is a comprehensive script for setting up and managing Shadowsocks on specific router firmware. gfwlist focuses on providing a standardized blocklist, whereas fancyss offers a more complete solution for circumventing censorship on supported devices. The choice between them depends on the specific use case and hardware compatibility.

Pros of v2ray-rules-dat

• More frequently updated ruleset for V2Ray
• Provides a wider range of rule categories (e.g., geoip, domain lists)
• Better documentation and usage instructions

Cons of v2ray-rules-dat

• Focused solely on V2Ray, less versatile for other VPN solutions
• May require more manual configuration compared to fancyss

Code Comparison

v2ray-rules-dat:

{
  "outbounds": [
    {
      "protocol": "freedom",
      "tag": "direct"
    },
    {
      "protocol": "blackhole",
      "tag": "block"
    }
  ]
}

fancyss:

#!/bin/sh

# Check if ss-redir is running
if [ -n "$(pidof ss-redir)" ]; then
    echo "ss-redir is already running"
    exit 0
fi

The code snippets show different approaches: v2ray-rules-dat focuses on V2Ray configuration, while fancyss includes shell scripts for managing VPN processes on routers.

v2ray-rules-dat is more specialized for V2Ray users, offering comprehensive rulesets and frequent updates. fancyss, on the other hand, provides a broader solution for various VPN protocols on router firmware, but may not offer as detailed rulesets for V2Ray specifically.

Pros of v2ray-core

• More versatile and supports a wider range of protocols
• Better performance and lower latency in many scenarios
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and improvements

Cons of v2ray-core

• More complex to set up and configure
• Requires more system resources to run effectively
• Less user-friendly for beginners compared to fancyss

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type User struct {
    Level uint32
    Email string
}

type Account struct {
    Id      string
    AlterId uint32
}

fancyss (Shell):

start_ss() {
    ss-redir -c /koolshare/ss/ss.json -f /var/run/ss-redir.pid
    ss-tunnel -c /koolshare/ss/ss.json -l 23456 -L 8.8.8.8:53 -u
}

v2ray-core is a more powerful and flexible tool for creating secure network tunnels, while fancyss is a simpler solution specifically designed for certain router firmware. v2ray-core offers better performance and protocol support but requires more technical knowledge to set up. fancyss is easier to use but has limited features compared to v2ray-core.

Pros of shadowsocks-libev

• More lightweight and efficient implementation
• Better performance on embedded devices and low-end hardware
• Wider platform support, including mobile devices

Cons of shadowsocks-libev

• Less user-friendly for beginners
• Fewer built-in features compared to fancyss
• Requires more manual configuration

Code Comparison

shadowsocks-libev:

static int create_and_bind(const char *host, const char *port,
                           int mptcp, int ipv6first)
{
    struct addrinfo hints;
    struct addrinfo *result, *rp, *ipv4v6bindall;
    int s, listen_sock;

fancyss:

start_ss() {
    echo "Starting shadowsocks..."
    ss-redir -c /koolshare/ss/ss.json -f /var/run/ss-redir.pid
    ss-tunnel -c /koolshare/ss/ss.json -l 5353 -L 8.8.8.8:53 -u
    ss-local -c /koolshare/ss/ss.json -f /var/run/ss-local.pid
}

The code comparison shows that shadowsocks-libev is written in C, focusing on low-level network operations, while fancyss uses shell scripts to manage Shadowsocks processes, indicating a higher-level approach geared towards user-friendly configuration and management on specific router platforms.

Pros of trojan

• Simpler and more focused protocol, potentially offering better performance
• Designed to be undetectable, mimicking HTTPS traffic more effectively
• Cross-platform support with official clients for various operating systems

Cons of trojan

• Less feature-rich compared to the comprehensive fancyss toolkit
• May require more manual configuration and setup for advanced use cases
• Limited to trojan protocol, while fancyss supports multiple protocols

Code Comparison

trojan (config.json):

{
    "run_type": "client",
    "local_addr": "127.0.0.1",
    "local_port": 1080,
    "remote_addr": "example.com",
    "remote_port": 443,
    "password": ["password1"]
}

fancyss (ss_config.sh):

ss_basic_server_ip="server_ip"
ss_basic_server_port="server_port"
ss_basic_password="password"
ss_basic_method="aes-256-cfb"
ss_basic_rss_protocol="origin"

The code snippets demonstrate the configuration differences between trojan and fancyss. trojan uses a JSON format for its configuration, while fancyss employs shell variables. trojan's config is more compact and focuses on essential connection parameters, whereas fancyss includes additional options for various protocols and encryption methods.

Pros of kcptun

• Focuses specifically on network acceleration and packet reliability
• Lightweight and efficient implementation in Go
• Supports multiple operating systems and architectures

Cons of kcptun

• More limited in scope compared to fancyss's broader feature set
• Requires separate client and server setup
• May have higher learning curve for non-technical users

Code Comparison

kcptun (server configuration):

kcptun.Listener("0.0.0.0:12948", &KCPConfig{
    MTU:          1350,
    SndWnd:       1024,
    RcvWnd:       1024,
    DataShard:    10,
    ParityShard:  3,
    DSCP:         0,
    NoComp:       false,
    AckNodelay:   true,
    NoDelay:      0,
    Interval:     40,
    Resend:       0,
    NoCongestion: 0,
    SockBuf:      4194304,
    StreamBuf:    2097152,
})

fancyss (configuration snippet):

ss_basic_server_ip="server_address"
ss_basic_server_port="8388"
ss_basic_password="password"
ss_basic_method="aes-256-gcm"
ss_basic_rss_protocol="origin"
ss_basic_rss_obfs="plain"

While kcptun focuses on network protocol optimization, fancyss provides a more comprehensive set of features for configuring and managing Shadowsocks on routers. The code examples highlight the different approaches: kcptun's Go-based configuration for network parameters versus fancyss's shell-based configuration for Shadowsocks settings.