Pros of wireguard-go

• More robust and feature-rich VPN solution
• Better performance and lower latency
• Wider adoption and community support

Cons of wireguard-go

• More complex setup and configuration
• Requires kernel support for optimal performance
• Larger codebase and potentially more resource-intensive

Code Comparison

wireguard-go

func (device *Device) RoutineHandshake() {
    for {
        select {
        case <-device.signals.stop:
            return
        default:
        }
        device.RoutineHandshakeIteration()
    }
}

dsvpn

static void
client_reconnect(void)
{
    for (;;) {
        if (client_connect() == 0) {
            break;
        }
        sleep(1);
    }
}

The code snippets show different approaches to connection handling. wireguard-go uses a more sophisticated routine with signal handling, while dsvpn employs a simpler reconnection loop.

wireguard-go offers a more comprehensive VPN solution with better performance and wider adoption. However, it comes with increased complexity and resource requirements. dsvpn, on the other hand, provides a simpler, lightweight alternative that may be easier to set up and use in certain scenarios, albeit with potentially fewer features and less robust performance.

Pros of OpenVPN

• Widely adopted and well-established VPN solution
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Flexible configuration options for various use cases

Cons of OpenVPN

• Complex setup and configuration process
• Larger codebase, potentially more vulnerabilities
• Higher resource consumption

Code Comparison

OpenVPN (server configuration example):

port 1194
proto udp
dev tun
ca ca.crt
cert server.crt
key server.key
dh dh2048.pem
server 10.8.0.0 255.255.255.0
ifconfig-pool-persist ipp.txt
push "redirect-gateway def1 bypass-dhcp"
keepalive 10 120

DSVPN (server configuration example):

./dsvpn server vpn.key auto 1959

DSVPN offers a significantly simpler configuration process, requiring only a single command line to set up the server. OpenVPN, while more complex, provides greater flexibility and customization options.

OpenVPN's larger codebase and extensive features contribute to its wider adoption and versatility. However, this complexity can lead to a steeper learning curve and potentially more security vulnerabilities.

DSVPN, being a lightweight alternative, focuses on simplicity and ease of use. It sacrifices some advanced features for a streamlined setup process and smaller attack surface. This makes it an attractive option for users seeking a straightforward VPN solution with minimal configuration overhead.

Pros of Pritunl

• Feature-rich web-based interface for easy management
• Supports multiple VPN protocols (OpenVPN, WireGuard, IPsec)
• Scalable for enterprise use with multi-server support

Cons of Pritunl

• More complex setup and configuration
• Requires more system resources
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

DSVPN (server setup):

int
dsvpn_server(void)
{
    char *ext_ip = NULL;
    char *ext_port = DEFAULT_PORT_S;
    char *vpn_ip = DEFAULT_VPN_IP_S;
    char *vpn_ip_client = DEFAULT_VPN_IP_CLIENT_S;
    char *vpn_cidr = DEFAULT_VPN_CIDR_S;

Pritunl (server setup):

def setup_server():
    logger.info('Starting server setup...')
    setup_local()
    setup_server_cert()
    setup_server_key()
    setup_server_dh_params()
    setup_server_ip_pool()
    setup_server_routes()

The code snippets show that DSVPN has a simpler, C-based setup process, while Pritunl uses Python and involves more complex configuration steps. DSVPN focuses on minimal, straightforward implementation, whereas Pritunl offers more extensive features and customization options.

Pros of SoftEtherVPN

• More feature-rich, supporting multiple VPN protocols (OpenVPN, IPsec, L2TP, MS-SSTP)
• Cross-platform compatibility (Windows, Linux, macOS, FreeBSD, Solaris)
• Graphical user interface for easier management

Cons of SoftEtherVPN

• Larger codebase, potentially more complex to set up and maintain
• Higher resource consumption due to additional features
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

DSVPN (simple configuration):

#define DEFAULT_MTU 1500
#define DEFAULT_PORT 443
#define DEFAULT_IDLE_TIMEOUT 300

SoftEtherVPN (more complex configuration):

#define SE_DEFAULT_PORT_TCP 443
#define SE_DEFAULT_PORT_UDP 500
#define SE_DEFAULT_PORT_IPSEC 4500
#define SE_DEFAULT_HUB_NAME "DEFAULT"
#define SE_DEFAULT_PACKET_SIZE 1500

DSVPN focuses on simplicity with minimal configuration options, while SoftEtherVPN offers more extensive customization and protocol support. DSVPN is designed for quick deployment with less overhead, whereas SoftEtherVPN provides a comprehensive VPN solution with advanced features and multi-protocol support.

Pros of algo

• More comprehensive VPN solution with support for multiple protocols (WireGuard, IPsec/IKEv2)
• Automated setup process for various cloud providers
• Actively maintained with regular updates and security improvements

Cons of algo

• More complex setup and configuration compared to dsvpn
• Requires more system resources due to its comprehensive feature set
• May be overkill for users seeking a simple, lightweight VPN solution

Code comparison

algo (setup.sh):

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e

SCRIPT_DIR="$( cd "$( dirname "${BASH_SOURCE[0]}" )" && pwd )"
cd "${SCRIPT_DIR}"

python3 -m virtualenv --python="$(command -v python3)" env

dsvpn (dsvpn.c):

#include <sys/types.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <arpa/inet.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>

algo offers a more feature-rich and automated VPN solution, while dsvpn provides a simpler, lightweight alternative. algo is better suited for users requiring a comprehensive VPN setup across multiple platforms, whereas dsvpn may be preferable for those seeking a minimalist, easy-to-deploy VPN option.

Pros of Streisand

• Supports multiple VPN protocols (OpenVPN, WireGuard, etc.)
• Automated setup process for various cloud providers
• Includes additional privacy-enhancing tools (Tor, DNSCrypt, etc.)

Cons of Streisand

• More complex setup and maintenance
• Requires more server resources
• Potentially overwhelming for users who need a simple VPN solution

Code Comparison

Streisand (Python):

def get_ip():
    ip = urllib2.urlopen('https://api.ipify.org').read().decode('utf-8')
    return ip.strip()

DSVPN (C):

static int
tcp_listener(const char *address, const char *port)
{
    struct addrinfo hints, *res;
    int             sockfd;

Summary

Streisand offers a comprehensive suite of privacy tools with automated deployment, making it suitable for users seeking a robust, multi-protocol solution. However, its complexity and resource requirements may be excessive for those needing a simple VPN. DSVPN, on the other hand, provides a lightweight, single-protocol option that's easier to set up and maintain, but lacks the extensive features of Streisand.