utorrent 1.5 out!

[saads]

With tons of new features and bug fixes - major new addition : Encryption!!! And even so, it's footprint is smaller than version 1.4.2

http://www.utorrent.com/download.php

Someone port this app to linux!!! It's really an incredible little piece of software. A great example of lean code.

It is, unfortunately, one of the things i miss in windows.

[Iandefor]

Except that it isn't under the GPL AFAIK... or any OSS/FS license that I'm aware of.

[saads]

Except that it isn't under the GPL AFAIK... or any OSS/FS license that I'm aware of.
It is free software - but you're right, it's not open source. So then I rephrase, "Someone please write a usable, slick, lightweight bittorrent client for linux!"

[Iandefor]

It is free software - but you're right, it's not open source. So then I rephrase, "Someone please write a usable, slick, lightweight bittorrent client for linux!" Hear, Hear! We do need something similar to utorrent.
Azureus is just a horrible resource hog, and all the other clients feel poorly designed.

[Virogenesis]

freeloader (http://www.ruinedsoft.com/freeloader/) is a nice app it doesn't have many features but its small and runs well on dapper

[Jucato]

have you tried KTorrent version 1.2? It has almost all the features of Azureus and has an option to set memory usage to low, medium, or high. I just don't know how well it works under GNOME. And you would have to compile it since the one in the repos is outdated.

[briancurtin]

i dont use bit torrent, but could someone explain why there are 253,974 bit torrent applications/clients? are any of them really that much different from others?

i know. open source, you can do what you want, freedom, etc. but why keep coming out with more and more of seemingly the same thing?

[saads]

freeloader (http://www.ruinedsoft.com/freeloader/) is a nice app it doesn't have many features but its small and runs well on dapper

"Requirements: 2 MB install space" A tiny app with very few features compared to utorrent that takes up 2MB of install space. This guy writes a fully-fledged bittorrent client for windows in only 150Kb!!! There's no comparison. But thanks for the tip.

[bored2k]

i dont use bit torrent, but could someone explain why there are 253,974 bit torrent applications/clients? are any of them really that much different from others?

i know. open source, you can do what you want, freedom, etc. but why keep coming out with more and more of seemingly the same thing?
Most of them are based on the official client (usually the old 3.4 version), so they aren't really any different other than the GUI. On the other hand, the more advanced ones like Bitcomet, azureus, bittornado and such can make a difference.

[Iandefor]

i dont use bit torrent, but could someone explain why there are 253,974 bit torrent applications/clients? are any of them really that much different from others?

i know. open source, you can do what you want, freedom, etc. but why keep coming out with more and more of seemingly the same thing? I have no idea. I know that, for some people, it's so that they can take a project in a certain direction and specialise the type of application they develop- for instance, there's a HUGE difference between Azureus and, say, Freeloader. Their developers decided they had different goals in mind for a bittorrent client.

But I do agree- some people fork/start a new project for seemingly no reason.

[benplaut]

"Requirements: 2 MB install space" A tiny app with very few features compared to utorrent that takes up 2MB of install space. This guy writes a fully-fledged bittorrent client for windows in only 150Kb!!! There's no comparison. But thanks for the tip.

yes, but freeloader has

Better Interface (imo)
downloads FTP/HTTP, as well

[Jucato]

Maybe not seemingly without reason, but they have probably reasons of their own that we might never know. Maybe it's a particular feature they want, or maybe a hobby, or integration into a particular OS/Desktop Environment. If it's a feature, don't be surprised by duplication.

But most of the times, it's really about features. You can see this wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorrent_software) page for a comparison. But it's not really updated for now (I think).

[GreyFox503]

Be careful with our words. This program is freeware, but it is not Free software. Although, I must add it seems well done.

I like Azureus myself, so much so that I install Java just for that. My computer can handle it so I don't have a problem.


What we need is a program like Azureus or uTorrent that is truly free (does not require java). Unfortunately, I've been rather lazy about this and have not tried any of the other free torrent clients.

[darkmatter]

Java is truely free.... just not the proprietary libs.... just build it using non-Sun and bingo... free java ;)

[Virogenesis]

sun's java is faster than the gnu one try using openoffice with sun you'll see a performance boast its a shame sun won't opensource java its quite amusing and pathenic hearing that make speaches about how they are going to embrace opensource.

[GreyFox503]

Java is truely free.... just not the proprietary libs.... just build it using non-Sun and bingo... free java ;)
I am aware that other companies/organizations can build java virtual machines (even Microsoft has one), but none of them are as good as Sun's, so I hear.

I am also under the impression that Sun's JVM has proprietary components to it, such that if you develop a Java app under Sun's JVM, it may not function under another JVM because you use Sun-only features. Is this true?

I am very interested in getting/building a free java VM. Please tell me more.

In case you are wondering, this is where I get much of my info: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html

EDIT: Really, the only Java program I run is Azureus, if that makes a difference.

[Jucato]

So I presume you don't use OpenOffice.org? I still don't understand why it uses Java, though. (But that's a topic outside of this thread :D)

[GreyFox503]

So I presume you don't use OpenOffice.org? I still don't understand why it uses Java, though. (But that's a topic outside of this thread :D)
The first thing I do when I install OpenOffice is disable its Java usage. (Not because I really hate Java, but because it loads much faster that way.)

So I believe it runs w/o Java, although I'm not 100% sure about that, because Java was still installed on my machine when it was running...

I think it just uses Java for its database app or something really minor. I've never run into any problems using the word processor or spreadsheet w/o java.

[xequence]

YAY!!!

Thanks for telling me.

1.4.2 BETA was an improvement over the last one, but I expect 1.5 to be even better.

[xequence]

yes, but freeloader has

Better Interface (imo)
downloads FTP/HTTP, as well



But you wont get anywhere in any torrent community with a client called "Freeloader" ;O

Seriously, it sounds like it cant seed or something.

[GeneralZod]

I'm quite liking ktorrent 1.2 at the moment, although it is still a little buggy and the whole approach to importing existing torrents is ... well, confusing and broken, in my opinion (why on earth would such essential functionality be placed in a plugin?!). I think I read on the forums that the creator actually agrees with this assessment, though, so hopefully it will be fixed soon-ish.

However, it's looking very nice and featureful, while still being quick to startup and with a small memory footprint. Plus, Kubuntu users will like its awesome integration with KDE :)

Come June or so, I imagine I'll never need to install Azureus ever again, which I'm looking forward to! :)

[kaamos]

Freeloader looked promising, but all the connections timed out and the program refused to close gracefully (had to kill the process every time). Oh well, still looking for a good and light bt client..

[stoeptegel]

...the more advanced ones like Bitcomet, azureus, bittornado and such can make a difference.

Seriously, bitcomet should have been legally dead for years already for its abusive behaviour to tracker/peers and tripping other clients.

[CronoDekar]

i dont use bit torrent, but could someone explain why there are 253,974 bit torrent applications/clients? are any of them really that much different from others?

i know. open source, you can do what you want, freedom, etc. but why keep coming out with more and more of seemingly the same thing?

None of them are really THAT different from the others, but often times new clients add new functionality or features. BitTornado for example came up with the super seeding feature (and was later added to many other clients), which in a nutshell tricks the system to allow seeds to distribute quicker when there's few seeds. I've personally found that uTorrent is the only Windows BitTorrent client I like that has both all the features I want and isn't a memory hog (I'm looking at you, ABC).

[Sheinar]

its a shame sun won't opensource java
I thought it was open-source, just not Free software. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

[Brunellus]

I thought it was open-source, just not Free software. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
Free Software means software LIBRE, not necessarily software Gratis.

[Sheinar]

Free Software means software LIBRE, not necessarily software Gratis.
I'm well aware of that, and that's what I meant when I said "Free software".

[mostwanted]

I thought it was open-source, just not Free software. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

No, it's not Open Source. Open Source and Free Software are essentially the same thing (there're some nitty gritty details in the definitions):

Open source definition:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

Free software definition:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

[Alpha_toxic]

Yes, uTorrent really is a great app. It's one of the few things I'm missing from Windows. Unfortunately it's not open souce, but, AFAIK, there were some pretty good reasons for keeping the code closed. Plus Ludde is a really good programer and on top of that is listening to the comunity and implementing any reasonable features suggested.

btw, if someone is using it, you might try going to Help>About and pressing "t" on your keyboard. This thing showed up in one of the last betas. In the change-log it was just "an Easter Egg" and it was great fun looking for it :)

[Sheinar]

Open Source and Free Software are essentially the same thing
Open source can be placed under a proprietary license and it's still open source if the source code is available. Free software cannot be proprietary, otherwise it's not Free software.

Most open source is Free software and they're mainly seen as the same thing, but they're really not.

[Josef K.]

I've also read (never tried) mldonkey support torrent and works quite well
any experience?

[mostwanted]

Open source can be placed under a proprietary license and it's still open source if the source code is available. Free software cannot be proprietary, otherwise it's not Free software.

Most open source is Free software and they're mainly seen as the same thing, but they're really not.

Not just available, all 4 pillars of Free software must be present in the license as well before it's Open Source (try reading the definion I provided and then read the Free Software definition I also provided), which makes it - essentially - the same thing.

Sun only provide the Java source code for reading, nothing else.

[Sheinar]

Not just available, all 4 pillars of Free software must be present in the license as well before it's Open Source (try reading the definion I provided and then read the Free Software definition I also provided), which makes it - essentially - the same thing.

Sun only provide the Java source code for reading, nothing else.
I've read both several times before. You're right, the "official" definition of open source is basically the same as Free software.

The Sun Java source code however is open to view (as you said), but not redistributable. You can even change the code to suit yourself (as far as I know), as long as you don't redistribute it.

I guess I was a little off in what I meant when I said Java is "open source", but not Free software. By both definitions, it's neither, but the source is open to view and change, as long as certain restrictions are kept.

[bored2k]

Seriously, bitcomet should have been legally dead for years already for its abusive behaviour to tracker/peers and tripping other clients.
That doesn't mean it isn't one of the most advanced clients out there.

[xequence]

Seriously, bitcomet should have been legally dead for years already for its abusive behaviour to tracker/peers and tripping other clients.

Yea, bitcomet is widly considered bad.


Open source can be placed under a proprietary license and it's still open source if the source code is available. Free software cannot be proprietary, otherwise it's not Free software.

Most open source is Free software and they're mainly seen as the same thing, but they're really not

Everything that doesent cost money is free. Nomatter if it is open source or not.

If the source code is avalable it is open source.


That doesn't mean it isn't one of the most advanced clients out there.

Sure it might be advanced (dont remember, only used it once) but everyone talks about all its ratio cheating and it does a certain thing to download faster, but hurts others. (Something along the lines of connecting, getting data, disconnecting, conecting again, doing it all over again)

And alot of the private trackers have banned bitcomet.

[mostwanted]

Everything that doesent cost money is free. Nomatter if it is open source or not.

If the source code is avalable it is open source.


We're talking about different things here. You mean free as in free beer, we mean free as in Free Software (read the definition I linked to a bit earlier on).

And no, that the source code is available does not make a program open source. Available for what, just reading? There has to be certain freedoms before it is open source.

[stoeptegel]

(Something along the lines of connecting, getting data, disconnecting, conecting again, doing it all over again)


Some known facts:

- It hamers the tracker, and pays no attention to the tracker when it tells the client how long to wait before re-announce.

- When it gets snubed by another peer (basically meaning the peer refuses to give the BC client any upload because it has not been given any download from the BC client), the BC client then disconnects up to 10+ times per second to that client in an attempt to get unsnubed.

- If you request too many pieces from it (something around 100? or so), it drops ALL your requests.

- It abuses super-seeding by disconnecting and reconnecting to get a slot, and basically monopolize the super-seeder's bandwidth.

- It has an abusive multi-tracker implementation (announces to all trackers in all tier always)

- It has no (working) upload slot limit, so it makes the upload bandwith so streached out that each peer only gets a few 100 bytes per second or less
(solved in newer versions)

- BitComet deliberately misreports upload and download amounts to trackers and seeds in order to get the "lion's share" of upload bandwidth from seeders.
(Others have said that using super-seed as a seeder often takes >200% of the torrent's size to create other seeds due to BitComet's cheating-by-default.)
(developer removed this "feature")

- BitComet disconnects working connections and reconnects to download more than is fair via optimistic unchoke -- (which is meant to give new arrivals something to share) In this way, BitComet competes unfairly for connections with other clients when it has downloaded a lot from the same peer, which is particularly unfriendly to new arrivals. Besides, this creates lots of churn which costs extra bandwidth for trackers and peers alike

- BitComet misuses DHT on private torrents/trackers, even ignoring BitComet's user's settings NOT to if the tracker briefly goes down
(solved in newer versions because almost all trackers banned bitcomet)

- BitComet is known to often 'forget' to inform other peers that it just downloaded a file chunk. This is especially bad for super-seeds, as they do not know if BitComet clients actually got (and will share) very rare torrent chunks
(although there are rumours utorrent1.4 has this bug too)

- BitComet creates incompatible torrent files, or just plain unreadable (even by BitComet!) torrent files, sometimes. Incompatibility is known to exist at least because of BitComet's strange way of handling unicode characters in filenames
(solved in newer versions)

-BitComet seems to favor uploading to other BitComet clients, even when getting faster download speeds from other clients. The most extreme case was a private tracker/torrent on a huge college LAN with "100mbps" connections -- the person who did this could download at >5mbps if using BitComet but only ~5-15 KB/sec if using µTorrent

- And last one:
BitComet's author has been virtually silent on these issues, even though some/many of them have been known for over 6 months. (more ATM)
===============/

Now, if there still are people thinking that Bitcomet is the most advanced client there is... i am Santa Claus this year alright?

The ONLY good features it has IMO is:
- protocol encryption
- the ability to get lists of peers from other bitcomet users

Normal thinking people just ban or forbid a programmed and behaving client like bitcomet.

[bjweeks]

The ONLY good features it has IMO is:
- protocol encryption
- the ability to get lists of peers from other bitcomet users

uTorrent and azureus both have both.

[stoeptegel]

@bjweeks
I know ;) (bitcomet even changed its protocol encryption to be compatible with utorrent and azureus lately)

[xequence]

The encryption in uTorrent and Azureus is standardized. Bitcomet just goes its own way and makes its own encryption.

And thanks for the list of its faults =)

[bjweeks]

bitcommet blows. Its place as closed source windows torrnet client have been takein over by utorrent.

[stoeptegel]

bitcommet blows. Its place as closed source windows torrnet client have been takein over by utorrent.

Indeed, i think we can safely say that utorrent has saved our asses. :)

[imagine]

Wasn't utorrent one of the very few closed-source Bittorrent-clients and didn't it redirect search queries over the site of the developer? The last thing I heard from this guy was that he made an agreement with PeerFactor to develop a errr... "new p2p content distribution system". (PeerFactor was in the news earlier for trying to pay others to spread fake files in p2p networks.)

So... everybody can use the Bittorrent-client he likes, but it's certainly one of the last applications *I* would bother about to be ported to Linux.

[xequence]

The last thing I heard from this guy was that he made an agreement with PeerFactor to develop a errr... "new p2p content distribution system". (PeerFactor was in the news earlier for trying to pay others to spread fake files in p2p networks.)


Yea, but that has nothing to do with utorrent.


but it's certainly one of the last applications *I* would bother about to be ported to Linux.

Its one of the first things I wish was ported to linux.

[Alpha_toxic]

Wasn't utorrent one of the very few closed-source Bittorrent-clients and didn't it redirect search queries over the site of the developer? The last thing I heard from this guy was that he made an agreement with PeerFactor to develop a errr... "new p2p content distribution system". (PeerFactor was in the news earlier for trying to pay others to spread fake files in p2p networks.)

So... everybody can use the Bittorrent-client he likes, but it's certainly one of the last applications *I* would bother about to be ported to Linux.
Yes, I read about that too, but I've been using uTorrent for about 6 months, participating in the beta testing end everything. From what I've seen I really don't think that Ludde has gone to the "dark side" or sth. The contract he made with PeerFactor had nothing to do with uTorrent and most likely it will not affect it in any way (except unfortunately ruining it's reputation). I'm definetely going to use it (I'm actually using it less and less, but this is cause I almost don't boot to windows any more and is not uTorrent's fault).
btw, AFAIK there are plans on porting it to Linux. There is also Web Interface in development, so there is no need to port the GUI, just the core. One beautifull day it might juts happen.

[egon spengler]

But you wont get anywhere in any torrent community with a client called "Freeloader" ;O

Seriously, it sounds like it cant seed or something.

I think it's a fairly witty name, let's be honest now, although there are many legitimate uses for bt (I've got a few Linux ISOs off there) the majority of people use it to get copyrighted material for gratis that they would otherwise have to pay for. That's freeloading. I respect the candidness.

Anyway, on the subject of light clients there's also transmission (http://transmission.m0k.org/). Not as feature packed as azureus or utorrent (I assume, I've never actually used utorrent) though

[treris]

I've been using KTorrent 1.2 for a while now, and while it may not be as good/small as utorrent I still think its better than azureus

but for anybody who wants to try it out I'd say use 1.2 and not 1.1 (which is in the repo's). 1.1 frequently crashed on me, but 1.2 has been stable as a rock.

I especially like the built in search functionm which allows you to search on various torrent sites (you can even add your own favorites if you want!)

you can download kubuntu specific deb's from right here if you want

http://ktorrent.pwsp.net/index.php?page=downloads

[NeoChaosX]

I'm quite liking ktorrent 1.2 at the moment, although it is still a little buggy and the whole approach to importing existing torrents is ... well, confusing and broken, in my opinion (why on earth would such essential functionality be placed in a plugin?!). I think I read on the forums that the creator actually agrees with this assessment, though, so hopefully it will be fixed soon-ish.

However, it's looking very nice and featureful, while still being quick to startup and with a small memory footprint. Plus, Kubuntu users will like its awesome integration with KDE :)

Agree here. I don't need something as advanced as Azureus, just need something that's quick and fits in with KDE. KTorrent is working out great for me, and it reminds me quite a bit of ABC (my Windows BT client) as well, so I don't have to adjust too much.

[noswal]

utorrent now works with wine, per these forums/posts
http://www.utorrent.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=167283#p167283
http://digg.com/software/%C2%B5Torrent_works_with_WINE

[YokoZar]

utorrent now works with wine, per these forums/posts
http://www.utorrent.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=167283#p167283
http://digg.com/software/%C2%B5Torrent_works_with_WINE
Not quite, utorrent now works with Wine CVS. There'll likely be another Wine release (0.9.11) containing the fixes sometime next week.

[bionnaki]

I like the official bittorrent client: http://download.bittorrent.com/dl/?C=M;O=D

just extract the source & run.
works well.

[bjweeks]

I like the official bittorrent client: http://download.bittorrent.com/dl/?C=M;O=D

just extract the source & run.
works well.

It is teh suck...

[QCompson]

I have to admit that utorrent is a nice application. Full featured, and with a footprint smaller than an eighteenth-century Chinese woman. It seems that the only linux bittorrent client to support encryption is Azureus, which is unforunate for those of us that are limited to 2 or 3 kb/s by traffic-shaping, bittorrent-hating ISPs (Azureus=Sasquatch of memory footprints).

[Iandefor]

Everything that doesent cost money is free. Nomatter if it is open source or not.

If the source code is avalable it is open source. It's a semantic difference. Free software (as in software libre) is capitalized. Free as in software gratis is not capitalized. That's the tripping up point. It's free, but not Free. And you're right, if you can get your hands on the source code, it's OSS. But OSS and Free software aren't the same thing. In order for something to be Free software, it has to follow rules regarding how you can redistribute and modify the source code that don't necessarily apply to OSS.

[stoeptegel]

Indeed, there's a difference. You have:
- free(freeware) as in money, closed software
- open-source software and free as in freedom
- the rest of the open-souce software section where it's not gnu
- and the software that's not freeware (money), wheither open-source or not.

If you are intrested in the distinction between open-source and free software(as in freedom), you could watch go-open-episode-01.mp4 where Richard Stallman tells his view
and
go-open-episode-06.mp4 where Bruce Perens tells his part.
(http://www.legaltorrents.com/index.htm or google, there's also a ogm download link when you google)

[Kernel Sanders]

Do torrents really have anything other than mostly illegal uses?

:confused:

[stoeptegel]

Do torrents really have anything other than mostly illegal uses?

:confused:

Depends on the torrent. There are many websites that give you a bittorrent download possibility besides a normal http/ftp download, these are commonly legal torrents.
So yes there is, depending on the source.