Pros of shadowsocks-android

• More established and widely used in the community
• Supports a variety of encryption methods and protocols
• Offers advanced features like route configuration and plugin system

Cons of shadowsocks-android

• Less user-friendly interface, may be challenging for non-technical users
• Requires more manual configuration and setup
• Limited official documentation and support

Code Comparison

shadowsocks-android:

override fun onCreateView(inflater: LayoutInflater, container: ViewGroup?, savedInstanceState: Bundle?): View? {
    return inflater.inflate(R.layout.layout_apps, container, false)
}

outline-apps:

render() {
  return (
    <div className="server-view">
      {this.renderContent()}
    </div>
  );
}

The code snippets show different approaches to rendering UI components. shadowsocks-android uses Kotlin and Android's native view inflation, while outline-apps employs TypeScript with React-style rendering.

outline-apps focuses on simplicity and ease of use, with a more modern tech stack. It offers a streamlined setup process and user-friendly interface, making it accessible to a broader audience. However, it may lack some of the advanced features and flexibility found in shadowsocks-android.

Both projects aim to provide secure and private internet access, but cater to different user needs and technical expertise levels.

Pros of Lantern

• More comprehensive censorship circumvention solution, including built-in proxy and content delivery network
• Larger user base and longer development history, potentially offering more stability and community support
• Supports multiple protocols (HTTP, HTTPS, SOCKS5) for diverse use cases

Cons of Lantern

• Less focused on privacy; may collect more user data compared to Outline
• Closed-source components limit transparency and independent security audits
• More complex architecture, potentially making it harder to deploy and maintain

Code Comparison

Lantern (Go):

func (c *Client) dialDirect(addr string) (net.Conn, error) {
    conn, err := net.DialTimeout("tcp", addr, c.Config.DialTimeout)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    return conn, nil
}

Outline (TypeScript):

async function connectTcp(host: string, port: number): Promise<net.Socket> {
  return new Promise((resolve, reject) => {
    const socket = new net.Socket();
    socket.connect(port, host, () => resolve(socket));
    socket.on('error', reject);
  });
}

Both examples show basic network connection functions, with Lantern using Go and Outline using TypeScript. Lantern's implementation is more concise, while Outline's Promise-based approach offers better asynchronous handling.

Pros of v2ray-core

• More flexible and customizable protocol support
• Advanced routing capabilities and traffic splitting
• Stronger focus on anti-censorship and bypassing network restrictions

Cons of v2ray-core

• Steeper learning curve and more complex configuration
• Less user-friendly interface for non-technical users
• Potentially higher resource usage due to its extensive features

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type User struct {
    Level uint32
    Email string
}

type Account struct {
    Id      string
    AlterId uint32
}

outline-apps (TypeScript):

interface Server {
  id: string;
  name: string;
  host: string;
  port: number;
}

interface AccessKey {
  id: string;
  name: string;
  password: string;
}

v2ray-core offers more granular control over user accounts and routing, while outline-apps focuses on simplicity and ease of use. v2ray-core's code structure reflects its more complex and feature-rich nature, whereas outline-apps prioritizes a straightforward approach to server and access key management.

Pros of Trojan

• Lightweight and efficient, with lower resource usage
• Supports multiple protocols (HTTP, WebSocket, TLS)
• More flexible configuration options for advanced users

Cons of Trojan

• Less user-friendly interface, primarily command-line based
• Smaller community and fewer resources for support
• Limited built-in features compared to Outline's comprehensive suite

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", "password2"],
    "ssl": {
        "cert": "/path/to/certificate.crt",
        "key": "/path/to/private.key",
        "alpn": ["http/1.1"]
    }
}

Outline (server configuration):

{
  "server": {
    "hostname": "example.com",
    "port": 443,
    "certificatePath": "/path/to/certificate.crt",
    "privateKeyPath": "/path/to/private.key"
  },
  "accessKeys": [
    {"id": "key1", "name": "User 1"},
    {"id": "key2", "name": "User 2"}
  ]
}

Both projects aim to provide secure and private internet access, but they differ in their approach and target audience. Trojan focuses on simplicity and efficiency, while Outline offers a more user-friendly experience with additional features for managing multiple users and servers.

Pros of Streisand

• Supports a wider range of VPN protocols and services
• Provides more comprehensive server setup automation
• Offers better documentation and user guides

Cons of Streisand

• More complex setup process
• Requires more technical knowledge to maintain
• Less frequent updates compared to Outline

Code Comparison

Streisand (server setup):

- name: Install Streisand Dependencies
  apt:
    name:
      - python-pip
      - python-dev
      - libffi-dev
      - libssl-dev
    state: present

Outline (client configuration):

export interface ServerConfig {
  apiUrl: string;
  certSha256: string;
  name?: string;
}

Streisand offers a more comprehensive server setup process, automating the installation of various dependencies. Outline, on the other hand, focuses on simplifying client configuration with a straightforward interface.

Streisand provides a broader range of VPN options and server automation, making it suitable for users who need flexibility and advanced features. However, it requires more technical expertise to set up and maintain.

Outline emphasizes ease of use and frequent updates, making it more accessible for less technical users. It offers a streamlined experience but with fewer customization options compared to Streisand.