Pros of shadowsocks-android

• Native Android implementation, optimized for mobile devices
• Supports VPN mode for system-wide proxy without root
• Integrated QR code scanner for easy server configuration

Cons of shadowsocks-android

• Limited to Android platform, not suitable for desktop users
• May have higher battery consumption due to constant VPN connection
• Fewer advanced features compared to the Windows version

Code Comparison

shadowsocks-android:

override fun onStartCommand(intent: Intent?, flags: Int, startId: Int): Int {
    if (BaseService.usingVpnMode) {
        if (prepare(this) != null) {
            startActivity(Intent(this, VpnRequestActivity::class.java)
                .addFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_NEW_TASK))
        } else {
            startVpn()
        }
    }
    return Service.START_STICKY
}

shadowsocks-windows:

private void UpdateSystemProxy()
{
    SystemProxy.Update(config, _enabled);
    UpdatePACFromGFWList();
    UpdateChainedProxyMode();
}

The Android version focuses on VPN mode implementation, while the Windows version handles system proxy settings and PAC updates. Both repositories are actively maintained and provide Shadowsocks functionality for their respective platforms, with platform-specific optimizations and features.

Pros of v2ray-core

• More advanced protocol support, including VMess, VLESS, and Trojan
• Better traffic obfuscation and anti-detection capabilities
• Highly customizable and flexible configuration options

Cons of v2ray-core

• Steeper learning curve due to increased complexity
• Higher resource consumption compared to Shadowsocks
• Potentially slower connection speeds in some scenarios

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type User struct {
    Account     Account
    Email       string
    Level       uint32
    SecuritySettings *SecurityConfig
}

shadowsocks-windows (C#):

public class Server
{
    public string server;
    public int server_port;
    public string password;
    public string method;
    public string remarks;
}

The code snippets demonstrate the difference in complexity between the two projects. v2ray-core's User struct includes more advanced features like account management and security settings, while shadowsocks-windows' Server class focuses on basic connection parameters.

v2ray-core offers more sophisticated functionality and customization options, making it suitable for advanced users and complex network environments. However, this comes at the cost of increased complexity and potentially higher resource usage. shadowsocks-windows, on the other hand, provides a simpler and more straightforward approach, which may be preferable for users seeking ease of use and lower system requirements.

Pros of Trojan

• Better obfuscation and resistance to deep packet inspection
• Simpler protocol design, potentially leading to better performance
• Supports both TCP and UDP traffic

Cons of Trojan

• Less widespread adoption compared to Shadowsocks
• Fewer client implementations available
• May require more complex server setup

Code Comparison

Trojan (C++):

std::string TrojanSession::generate(const std::string& password) {
    uint8_t hash[SHA224_DIGEST_LENGTH];
    SHA224((const uint8_t*)password.c_str(), password.length(), hash);
    return Config::hexify(hash, SHA224_DIGEST_LENGTH);
}

Shadowsocks-Windows (C#):

public static string GetPassword(string password)
{
    byte[] passwordBytes = Encoding.UTF8.GetBytes(password);
    byte[] hash = MD5.Create().ComputeHash(passwordBytes);
    return Convert.ToBase64String(hash);
}

Both projects implement secure password hashing, but Trojan uses SHA-224 while Shadowsocks-Windows uses MD5. Trojan's approach is generally considered more secure due to MD5's known vulnerabilities.

Pros of Lantern

• More user-friendly interface, making it easier for non-technical users
• Built-in content delivery network (CDN) for faster access to blocked content
• Supports multiple protocols, including HTTP, HTTPS, and SOCKS5

Cons of Lantern

• Less customizable than Shadowsocks-Windows
• Potential privacy concerns due to centralized infrastructure
• May be less effective in highly restricted networks

Code Comparison

Lantern (Go):

func (c *Client) dialDirect(addr string) (net.Conn, error) {
    conn, err := net.DialTimeout("tcp", addr, 10*time.Second)
    if err != nil {
        return nil, err
    }
    return conn, nil
}

Shadowsocks-Windows (C#):

private void Connect()
{
    IPEndPoint remoteEP = null;
    remoteEP = new IPEndPoint(server.ipAddress, server.port);
    socket = new Socket(remoteEP.AddressFamily, SocketType.Stream, ProtocolType.Tcp);
    socket.Connect(remoteEP);
}

Both projects aim to provide secure and unrestricted internet access, but they differ in their approach and implementation. Lantern focuses on ease of use and speed, while Shadowsocks-Windows offers more customization options and potentially better performance in highly restricted environments. The code snippets demonstrate the different languages used (Go for Lantern, C# for Shadowsocks-Windows) and their respective connection methods.

Pros of kcptun

• Utilizes KCP protocol for improved network performance, especially in high-latency or lossy environments
• Offers more advanced network optimization features and customization options
• Can be used with various proxy protocols, not limited to Shadowsocks

Cons of kcptun

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Higher resource consumption due to additional protocol overhead
• May require more frequent updates to maintain compatibility with changing network environments

Code Comparison

kcptun (Go):

func (l *Listener) AcceptKCP() (*UDPSession, error) {
    var timeout <-chan time.Time
    if l.block != nil {
        timeout = time.After(l.block)
    }
    select {
    case conn := <-l.chAccepts:
        return conn, nil
    case <-timeout:
        return nil, &errTimeout{}
    }
}

shadowsocks-windows (C#):

private void UpdateServers()
{
    foreach (var server in _modifiedConfiguration.configs)
    {
        _servers.Add(new Server(server));
    }
    _currentServer = _servers.FirstOrDefault();
}

The code snippets demonstrate different aspects of each project. kcptun focuses on network protocol implementation, while shadowsocks-windows handles server configuration management.