Will Linux ever have a decent (native) bittorrent client?

[449]

As of right now there is no Linux bittorrent client out that can come close to comparing with that of Utorrent on Windows. Is there any chance of a Linux competitor in the near future?

ps- not trying to bash deluge/ktorrent, but neither come close to utorrent.

[anjilslaire]

well, if you really want utorrent (it was my favorite when I used Windows) it works fine under wine...

[shifty_powers]

so whats stopping you from using utorrent? it works perfectly in wine...

[449]

I'm aware of that (in fact I'm downloading with it right now!) it's that will we ever see a native client like utorrent for linux?

[Rob-e]

ive never used utorrent, what does it have that deluge doesnt?

[fatality_uk]

As of right now there is no Linux bittorrent client out that can come close to comparing with that of Utorrent on Windows. Is there any chance of a Linux competitor in the near future?

ps- not trying to bash deluge/ktorrent, but neither come close to utorrent.

You mean you don't like the feature list in ktorrent! It's utorrent without the k. Azureus is also in the repos along with qtorrent and most of the alphabet I think :lol: TorrentFlux is also rather nice.

[philinux]

+1 for Deluge, just superb.

[tjwoosta]

am i the only one here who likes bittornado?

[drrwhistle3]

Azeurus has all I need. Never any problems.

[Cypher]

I've had no issues with Transmission..apart from downloading the files, what specific feature are you looking for in the client anyway?

[449]

I've had no issues with Transmission..apart from downloading the files, what specific feature are you looking for in the client anyway?

Mainly fast download speed, and low on system resources.

[NullHead]

Well I would use transmission then. µtorrent is my fav too, but it's not too useful in linux as you need wine to run it. Wine can be a bit harsh on resources so I don't like to use µtorrent + wine.

[Cypher]

Mainly fast download speed, and low on system resources.

I usually let my downloads run over night and don't pay attention to when they complete, so I guess I'm not that picky with speed..:)

[arsenic23]

If you don't mind setting up a server TorrentFlux > utorrent.

[DO55]

why you dont use utorrent with wine software ?

[paulderol]

isn't utorrent not Open Source?

that would be the reason it's not your friend, in that it could very well be talking back to someone listing various things you have done...

i'll take the security of transparency [meaning fewer backdoors] over the percieved utorrent benefits, which i do not belive are that good. Deluge and Azureus work wonders for most of us. what is the benchmark you're using?

[starcannon]

I've had no issues with Transmission..apart from downloading the files, what specific feature are you looking for in the client anyway?

+1 for transmission, it does everything I want it to, if your wanting something with bells and whistles theres Azureus, I just don't need the bloat and transmission has everything I want/need.

[mivo]

"Decent" is so subjective. :) I use Deluge and it does everything I want from a BT client (and more).

[atomkarinca]

isn't utorrent not Open Source?

No, it's not and what's wrong with Deluge? If you give it an open port it's fast as a cheetah. I used utorrent exclusively on Windows but with Deluge's plugins I have never looked back.

[philinux]

No, it's not and what's wrong with Deluge? If you give it an open port it's fast as a cheetah. I used utorrent exclusively on Windows but with Deluge's plugins I have never looked back.

I used random ports and there was no trouble at all. Almost sets itself up.

[449]

The thing for me is, even with wine, utorrent still uses the least amount of resources and also downloads just as fast as a native client.

[philinux]

Well since it's free why not give deluge a go.

[cariboo]

Have you emailed the producers of utorrent and asked them when they are going port it to Linux? Software producers won't make a product if there is no demand.

Jim

[449]

Well since it's free why not give deluge a go.

I've used deluge countless times and it always seems to break, crash, ect. :confused:

[philinux]

I'd get the latest version then from themselves.

http://deluge-torrent.org/

I've never had one crash, even on my new 64bit pc.

[mrgnash]

What could you possibly need a bittorrent client to do that Deluge doesn't do already? :confused:

[bodhi.zazen]

Moved to the cafe as this is not really a support thread.

rtorrent + screen FTW !!!!

[Greyed]

Well I would use transmission then. µtorrent is my fav too, but it's not too useful in linux as you need wine to run it. Wine can be a bit harsh on resources so I don't like to use µtorrent + wine.

Not sure how you came to this conclusion. When I was looking for a torrent client I found that wine + utorrent was the smallest possible impact:

http://www.debianhelp.org/node/5128#comment-15409

As for a decent client on Linux I say go with KTorrent. After dumping Azureus and not finding a decent Python based client with active development (RIP G3torrent and Rufus) I gave KTorrent a spin and found it suited my needs.

Finally, if utorrent is really, reaaaaaaaly what you guys want then bug the utorrent people to complete the Linux port they promised. Lemme dig up a link....

Huh... they've changed their FAQ and now say a Linux port is no longer planned. o.O I could swear they said they were going to do one when I last looked. :(

http://www.utorrent.com/faq.php#Is_there_a_Linux_or_Mac_version.3F

[mivo]

I'd get the latest version then from themselves. http://deluge-torrent.org/

Version 0.5.9.2 (released today) has some bugs, i.e. it does not create menu entries and doesn't seem to auto-load torrent files from within Firefox. So it may be a good idea to wait a couple days for this to get fixed (the software itself works fine, though). 0.5.9.2 does fix a "re-checking" bug where half the data was ignored.

[zachtib]

Version 0.5.9.2 (released today) has some bugs, i.e. it does not create menu entries and doesn't seem to auto-load torrent files from within Firefox. So it may be a good idea to wait a couple days for this to get fixed (the software itself works fine, though). 0.5.9.2 does fix a "re-checking" bug where half the data was not ignored.

that's no good... though if you want, 0.5.9.1 is still the latest in the PPA, i haven't packaged 0.5.9.2 yet
https://launchpad.net/~deluge-team/+archive

[AndyCooll]

Will Linux ever have a decent (native) bittorrent client?

Answer - Yes, it already has plenty of "decent (native)" BitTorrent clients ...Azureus, KTorrent, Deluge, Transmission, rTorrent to name a few.

Just because they don't entirely suit your needs doesn't mean that they're not decent. IMHO uTorrent has always been vastly overrated and doesn't do anything that I can't do with Azureus or KTorrent, or even rTorrent ...but hey, that's just my opinion.

And like bodhi.zazen I use rTorrent and Screen. I have it running on my headless server. AFAIA, you can't do that with uTorrent! Does that mean uTorrent isn't decent? I don't think so, it simply isn't suitable for my needs, but a Windows user on the other hand might think it's just what they're looking for.

:cool:

[Greyed]

And like bodhi.zazen I use rTorrent and Screen. I have it running on my headless server. AFAIA, you can't do that with uTorrent!

Says who? I run KTorrent on my headless server since it is the only machine I leave on 24/7.

Screen, TightVNC, potaEto, potaHto.

[zachtib]

Says who? I run KTorrent on my headless server since it is the only machine I leave on 24/7.

Screen, TightVNC, potaEto, potaHto.

Yeah, but you'd still need X11 and some sort of window manager installed, even if you don't have a monitor set up, right?

[ghindo]

If you're looking for a light BitTorrent client to replace uTorrent, there's nothing lighter than rTorrent. K.Mandla has a pretty straight-forward guide on how to use it:

http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2007/05/02/howto-use-rtorrent-like-a-pro/

Also, I don't understand why there's so much love for uTorrent when Halite (http://www.binarynotions.com/halite-bittorrent-client) is lighter and open-source :)

[LookTJ]

I prefer rtorrent compared to Utorrent. Please don't hate me :).

[Greyed]

Yeah, but you'd still need X11 and some sort of window manager installed, even if you don't have a monitor set up, right?

Strictly speaking, no and no. Though I wouldn't understand why one would want a GUI app and not have WM to control it.

Just so you understand what you asked is like asking, "Yeah, but you need to have termcap and some shell installed, right?"

In my setup, no, I do not have a console X setup on that machine. In fact for the past few years I have not had X on the console of that machine. The X session that KTorrent (and the hypothetical utorrent) runs in is virtual; no connection at all to any physical display or hardware to drive said display. See this page for more details:
http://www.tightvnc.com/Xvnc.1.html

As for the WM I happen to run KDE in that session; it is KTorrent after all. However I could just as easily start the session, not start KDE (or any other DE/WM) and do the following command (in zsh):


DISPLAY=:10 ktorrent &!

I'd then have KTorrent by itself, non window attachmnents on a default grey hash background. But like I said before, why would one run a GUI app and not have a WM of some sort? ;)

Anyway, my point is that it is possible to run any GUI app, including utorrent (via wine) on a headless box.

[hanzomon4]

Never used utorrent, even so I can't understand what more it could possibly do that deluge, Vuze, Ktorrent, Transmission, and the others can't. Unless it can provide true love or no strings attached sex I don't get the obsession.

[WildOscar]

In my windows box the only reason i use utorrent was due to its small foot print and system utilization. It was indeed better than other windows based torrent client i have used. Until i discover Deluge. I like it simply because its damn unstable in Windows and very very stable in my Ubuntu!. Kudo's for the team! but i think the latest release in Windows is stable.

I vote Deluge true linux torrent client. Am very happy with it!! give it a try. Furthermore deluge might be able to bypass traffic shaping by the baddies.

[spupy]

If someone makes a GTK gui for rTorrent, it will DOMINATE!

[tgrimley]

I definitely agree with that thought spupy. I use rtorrent from windows by mounting a networked drive on my server and dropping the .torrent into the watched directory.

Seeding 300 torrents using 48MB ram (up for 18 days).

[eragon100]

I see Utorrent as having a native linux version, because of this:

Download µTorrent now - It's Free.
For Wine, Windows 95 (Winsock2), 98/ME, NT/2000, XP, 2003, and Vista.

Yes, that's from the main site's download section :)

[SomeGuyDude]

What's wrong with Deluge??

[zachtib]

I see Utorrent as having a native linux version, because of this:

Download µTorrent now - It's Free.
For Wine, Windows 95 (Winsock2), 98/ME, NT/2000, XP, 2003, and Vista.

Yes, that's from the main site's download section :)

that's cool. I hadn't seen any app actually list wine as an officially supported platform before. I'm guessing now that 1.0 is out, this might become more common.

[Exsecrabilus]

Azeurus has all I need. Never any problems.
You do know that the Azureus project has been discontinued and you will not receive further updates?

[Greyed]

Er, they've renamed. That implies continued development, just under a new name. Discontinued would be like, uhm, Stampede Linux which is no more.

[Exsecrabilus]

Er, they've renamed. That implies continued development, just under a new name. Discontinued would be like, uhm, Stampede Linux which is no more.
No, Vuze is not Azureus.

Vuze replaced Azureus a long time ago, but the misconception was that it was an application to run alongside Azureus. But now a lot of people know and the Azureus project has been discontinued, but Vuze lives.

[Greyed]

http://azureus.sourceforge.net/

Top line in big letters, "Azureus - now called Vuze - bittorrent client"

Second line, bit letters, "Welcome to the hi-res torrent world of Vuze, formerly known as Azureus."

Subtitle, "Same frog, new name."

http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Azureus_2_/_3_and_Vuze#For_the_.22I_don.27t_like_Vuze.22_crow d

First 3 FAQs:

-----


Do I have to use the Vuze interface?

NO. It's optional. You can get Azureus to start up with the "classic UI", and none of the Vuze interface code will be loaded at all. Just to repeat ourselves again - YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE THE VUZE INTERFACE. Read about the UI Switcher



I don't like the Vuze interface!

Then don't use it. Remember, it's optional!



You shouldn't force people to use Vuze

I agree. Which is why we don't, it's optional.


-----

Ironically I read those three and all I could think of was, "Get these people to knock some sense into the Firefox devs vis a vis the stupid SLB!" But anyway... Point is that according to every official source I can find on Azureus development has not ceased. They changed the name. Azureus lives. It's just called Vuze now because of the different, optional, UI element.

[Exsecrabilus]

http://azureus.sourceforge.net/

Top line in big letters, "Azureus - now called Vuze - bittorrent client"

Second line, bit letters, "Welcome to the hi-res torrent world of Vuze, formerly known as Azureus."

Subtitle, "Same frog, new name."

http://www.azureuswiki.com/index.php/Azureus_2_/_3_and_Vuze#For_the_.22I_don.27t_like_Vuze.22_crow d

First 3 FAQs:

-----


Do I have to use the Vuze interface?

NO. It's optional. You can get Azureus to start up with the "classic UI", and none of the Vuze interface code will be loaded at all. Just to repeat ourselves again - YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE THE VUZE INTERFACE. Read about the UI Switcher



I don't like the Vuze interface!

Then don't use it. Remember, it's optional!



You shouldn't force people to use Vuze

I agree. Which is why we don't, it's optional.


-----

Ironically I read those three and all I could think of was, "Get these people to knock some sense into the Firefox devs vis a vis the stupid SLB!" But anyway... Point is that according to every official source I can find on Azureus development has not ceased. They changed the name. Azureus lives. It's just called Vuze now because of the different, optional, UI element.
LOL! All the news sources I read say Azureus has been discontinued and has been replaced. Oh well, can't be the official sources, eh?

[pt123]

Ktorrent is my preferred BT client, even though I use Gnome. But sadly in (K)ubuntu it's packages become outdated and the older versions are banned on some private trackers.

[forger]

ps- not trying to bash deluge/ktorrent, but neither come close to utorrent.

you also have azureus, but I believe deluge is quite capable of being almost equal to utorrent, it has a lot of options and plugins

[sisco311]

deluge 0.6 looks promising.

Does Deluge support daemon mode, with no GUI? (http://deluge-torrent.org/faq.php#)
Not with the current 0.5 branch, but it will with the forthcoming 0.6 branch. On Linux, you can try our unstable in-development 0.6 branch from our SVN or download nightly packages for Ubuntu/Debian here (http://download.deluge-torrent.org/nightly/0.6/). 0.6 is *not* ready and should not be used by people who want a lot of features (as it currently has very few) or don't want to deal with bugs.

I'm lazy to configure rtorrent.:)

[AndyCooll]

deluge 0.6 looks promising.

I'm lazy to configure rtorrent.:)
rTorrent doesn't need any configuring. You can just install it and run it, just as you can with most torrent clients. Of course you can make configuration changes if you so choose (again, just like you can with other torrent clients), but the defaults are fine for most users.

:cool:

[Christmas]

I really don't see what's the problem with Deluge or KTorrent. I use KTorrent for two years now and it has absolutely everything I need. And the 3.x version is under development, which will include even more features.

[Exsecrabilus]

I really don't see what's the problem with Deluge or KTorrent. I use KTorrent for two years now and it has absolutely everything I need. And the 3.x version is under development, which will include even more features.
I've heard good things about KTorrent, but I run GNOME and I don't want to install those mass dependencies..... :(

[sujoy]

just use rtorrent duh.

[ibutho]

+1 for Ktorrent and Deluge. They are both light on resources and work very well for me.

[hanzomon4]

Why did Ubuntu go with transmission? I'm not knocking it but I thought deluge was like the BIG gnome client.

[Christmas]

Yeah Transmission is more poor in features than Deluge, which I'd prefer if I used GNOME (but I'm not).

[Mateo]

The best gnome client that no one talks about is Linkage. The problem with it is that it's a PAIN to install. The deb packages are all old, and installing from source is an excercise in dependancy nightmare. Trust me, I succeeded once and it required installing at least 15+ source packages.

[Mateo]

Why did Ubuntu go with transmission? I'm not knocking it but I thought deluge was like the BIG gnome client.

deluge is a bit of resource hog.

[EdThaSlayer]

Deluge is a must try for you. It's simpler than Utorrent but still retains the complexity. Get what I mean?:)

[karellen]

Ktorrent all the way

[mivo]

deluge is a bit of resource hog.

Perhaps on a machine with 512 or less MB RAM. Mine currently uses 40 MB RAM after several days of running and downloading torrents. 0-2% CPU usage (with the advanced progress bars turned on). Nautilus uses 46 MB.

[Exsecrabilus]

Why did Ubuntu go with transmission? I'm not knocking it but I thought deluge was like the BIG gnome client.
Transmission FTW. I don't care about those features, I want to download my torrents and get it over with. Who needs features? Transmission is simple and useful.
Besides, I don't like how Deluge asks you questions at first start-up, kinda annoying. :?

[diskotek]

+1 deluge

[Mr.Auer]

I dont know whats so great in uTorrent or Azureus...I didnt like either of them. Ktorrent for me, thanks. Its got all the features I need, and its been stable for me. Never crashed by itself.

[hellmet]

Deluge's way of counting ratio absolutely sucks! The ratio of other files change whenever I delete a torrent from the list. Thats the reason I dumped it.

[Canis familiaris]

I like ktorrent

[Stefanie]

am i the only one here who likes bittornado?

no. bittornado is wonderful :)

[thisiam]

Ktorrent for me. auto shutdown is great feature that all torrent clients should have.

[Barrucadu]

I'm currently using the SVN build of Deluge and I must say, it is wonderful.

[Vicfred]

Azureus was fine till it turned into vuze now it sux =(

[Mateo]

Perhaps on a machine with 512 or less MB RAM. Mine currently uses 40 MB RAM after several days of running and downloading torrents. 0-2% CPU usage (with the advanced progress bars turned on). Nautilus uses 46 MB.

What? Resource usage isn't dependant on hardware. If you used 40mb on your computer, the same would happen on any other computer (under the same conditions).

40mb is a lot of ram for a program that has 1 use. I'm not sure why you compared Deluge to Nautilus, which is the backbone of a lot of what your computer does.

I just tested Deluge with Transmission. No torrents running, 15mb for Deluge and 7mb for Transmission.

[bufsabre666]

I just tested Deluge with Transmission. No torrents running, 15mb for Deluge and 7mb for Transmission.

i got 12 and 8 but theres other variables, cause i use vuze now ((LOVE IT, puts azureus to shame)) and its using 112mb currently, i can see the argument on older hardware but on modern computers 112mb isnt that much, i havent seen a computer at the local shops with less than 2gb in over a year

[mivo]

40mb is a lot of ram for a program that has 1 use. I'm not sure why you compared Deluge to Nautilus, which is the backbone of a lot of what your computer does.

What is 40 MB if you have 3 GB of RAM? Or even if you have 1 GB? Even with many programs runnings, I rarely find my Ubuntu system using more than 600-700 MB of the available 3000 (sans file caching). RAM has stopped being a concern for most people years ago already. Yes, sure, I also started with computers that had memory in the kilobytes range, but by today's standards the practical difference between a program using 7 or 15 MB, or 40 or 60 MB is insignificant for most users who bought/built their machine in the past five years. With "resource hog" I associate programs that use 300 MB RAM and 25% of my CPU cycles, and that doesn't describe Deluge.

I'm not saying Transmission isn't also a good choice (even though it never worked well for me and I got worse speeds from it and missed some features), but Deluge doesn't deserve the reputation of being some heavy beast that wastes away half of your computer's resources. It doesn't.

[23meg]

What? Resource usage isn't dependant on hardware. If you used 40mb on your computer, the same would happen on any other computer (under the same conditions).

No, RAM usage does depend on CPU architecture. The exact same typical set of desktop apps running on AMD64 will take more RAM than on i386 since (over-simplification alarm goes off) 64-bit instructions take more memory. This is just one reason why "It uses n MB of RAM" figures spouted all over forums are usually poor or non-arguments.

[zachtib]

I'm currently using the SVN build of Deluge and I must say, it is wonderful.

I just set up a repo for nightly builds of 0.6, http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=837683

[Mateo]

No, RAM usage does depend on CPU architecture. The exact same typical set of desktop apps running on AMD64 will take more RAM than on i386 since (over-simplification alarm goes off) 64-bit instructions take more memory. This is just one reason why "It uses n MB of RAM" figures spouted all over forums are usually poor or non-arguments.

That wouldn't be "under the same conditions", would it?

[happysmileman]

Well I can't really see how uTorrent has faster downloads than kTorrent, I would assume the difference is minimal and I don't see any problems with my speed on either (though I never used uTorrent much.)

Of course I'm running the KDE4 version of KTorrent, so maybe that's better?

[Mateo]

What is 40 MB if you have 3 GB of RAM? Or even if you have 1 GB? Even with many programs runnings, I rarely find my Ubuntu system using more than 600-700 MB of the available 3000 (sans file caching). RAM has stopped being a concern for most people years ago already. Yes, sure, I also started with computers that had memory in the kilobytes range, but by today's standards the practical difference between a program using 7 or 15 MB, or 40 or 60 MB is insignificant for most users who bought/built their machine in the past five years. With "resource hog" I associate programs that use 300 MB RAM and 25% of my CPU cycles, and that doesn't describe Deluge.

I'm not saying Transmission isn't also a good choice (even though it never worked well for me and I got worse speeds from it and missed some features), but Deluge doesn't deserve the reputation of being some heavy beast that wastes away half of your computer's resources. It doesn't.

There is a difference between "Deluge doesn't use a lot of resources" and "I don't mind that Deluge uses a lot of resources". And please stop pretending like anyone who dislikes resource hog programs must be running a p2 era computer.

[mivo]

40 MB RAM (and it was less than that for you) isn't "a lot of resources" for most users (it's a little more than 1% of my RAM). It is only "a lot of resources" if you have 512 MB RAM or less, in which case I'd not run Ubuntu (but Xubuntu).

[Mateo]

Depends on your frame of mind. A torrent client has 1 use, down/uploading torrents. 40mb is way too much for that 1 simple task, I don't care if I have 5gb of ram. My email client uses half the ram of Deluge and has 20x more uses. I don't use bloated programs, its just not in my DNA.

[mivo]

Well, what's the point of having RAM that isn't used? Why would I sacrifice features and functionality to use a few MB less if I get zero advantages in return? Trasnmission has fewer features and options, lacks the plugin system, and is generally rather "slim". I have the RAM (as does most everyone today), so I use the more convenient, better featured software.

My mail program uses more memory. :) Evolution currently occupies 60 MB, and Firefox 105 MB. It's still peanuts, because besides those two and Deluge, I only have Pidgin (20 MB) running. So, most of my resources are unused even with programs you consider too heavy.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I use what I have, because if I didn't, I'd not need it. There's no point in having a state-of-the-art computer that's newer than five years and use it as if it had been bought ten years ago. Matter of preference, perhaps. If someone gifts me a bottle of wine, I drink it on the following weekend.

[Tom Mann]

KTorrent - has everything you'd expect from a Bittorrent client without the bloat - even IP filtering.

[ghindo]

40mb is way too much for that 1 simple task, I don't care if I have 5gb of ram.I'm assuming your posting from Lynx, then?

[doorknob60]

Ktorrent is ownage! I used it even in Gnome (although I didn't know about Deluse or anything else, but I never bothered switching because I liked it). Now I use KDE so Ktorrent is the obvious choice, and I think it's just as good as Utorrent (yes that's what I used in Windows). If I switched back to Gnome, I would probably give Deluge a shot though, but I can't see that happening in the near future :P

[23meg]

That wouldn't be "under the same conditions", would it?

You explicitly said it didn't depend on hardware (which is what's wrong), and thus "under the same conditions" appeared to mean "under the same software environment".

[adityakavoor]

What is wrong with deluge ?

[karellen]

am I the only one who think all this talk is rather pointless? as if there weren't any good bittorrent clients for Linux... and the fact is there are many, for everyone's needs and tastes

[Exsecrabilus]

What is wrong with deluge ?
You didn't capitalize it.

[shivans]

ktorrent has proved to be an excellent replacement for utorrent. I even use it within Gnome instead of transmission and the others.

[Greyed]

What? Resource usage isn't dependant on hardware.

Yes it is. My first machine was a Tandy Color Computer 1 with 4Kb of memory. Yes, 4 kilobytes. 40Mb to that is 40,000 times its resources.

My current laptop has 256Mb of RAM. 40Mb is only 16% of the total RAM. A bit chunky but at least it can run it.

My current game machine is 1Gb. 40Mb is only 4% of it's resources.

My next laptop is speccing out to 2Gb. Total resources would be 2%.

Resources does depend on hardware since what matters is the ratio of the program vs. the available resources on the machine. Many of the programs we take for granted now are resource hogs to their counterparts a mere 10 years ago. The growth underlying hardware resources is what makes us not feel it.



40mb is a lot of ram for a program that has 1 use. I'm not sure why you compared Deluge to Nautilus, which is the backbone of a lot of what your computer does.

Ok, Azureus (when I last tested it) 300Mb. That is a resource hog!


I just tested Deluge with Transmission. No torrents running, 15mb for Deluge and 7mb for Transmission.

And are they feature comparable? Remember, just because you don't use features in Deluge which are not present in Transmission doesn't mean other people do not. In spite of it being "a program with 1 use" the ancillary features in BT clients these days means that comparing two feature-disparate BT clients would be like comparing mutt to Thunderbird. Sure, mutt is smaller but it is in no way a replacement for Thunderbird.

[RebounD11]

Deluge is way faster and more stable than utorrent (in both Windows and Linux). My father uses utorrent and I use Deluge... guess who's torrents download faster :D (I know torrent download speed depends on a lot of things, but we ran tests to decide the winner... which was clearly Deluge).

[Mateo]

Here's Linkage

[herbster]

ktorrent has proved to be an excellent replacement for utorrent. I even use it within Gnome instead of transmission and the others.

Ktorrent rocks, I use it on my server, has a sweet little web interface too I use from my desktop to manage it.

[Greyed]

Well, for those asking "What's wrong with Deluge" I have found two bugs so far.

I seed my torrents back to 125% or a ratio of 1.25. So I set that as the default and told Deluge to pause at 1.25%. One torrent was stuck at 99% and would not go further. This has happened twice. During the time it got stuck it got to a ratio of 1.89. Forcing a recheck got it to download the last 1% and the torrent went into queued status with a ratio of 0.0. Hmmm, oook. So today I come in and the torrent was in "paused" status with a ratio of 1.25. So 1.89 + 1.25 = 3.14.

1: It shouldn't get stuck like that.
2: It shouldn't clear the ratio when the torrent goes from leech to seed. We're pushing out data while leeching and that counts. :(

[RebounD11]

Well, for those asking "What's wrong with Deluge" I have found two bugs so far.

I seed my torrents back to 125% or a ratio of 1.25. So I set that as the default and told Deluge to pause at 1.25%. One torrent was stuck at 99% and would not go further. This has happened twice. During the time it got stuck it got to a ratio of 1.89. Forcing a recheck got it to download the last 1% and the torrent went into queued status with a ratio of 0.0. Hmmm, oook. So today I come in and the torrent was in "paused" status with a ratio of 1.25. So 1.89 + 1.25 = 3.14.

1: It shouldn't get stuck like that.
2: It shouldn't clear the ratio when the torrent goes from leech to seed. We're pushing out data while leeching and that counts. :(

Never happened to me... however the Windows version didn't allow my dad to have more than 3 torrents active... and it was setup with no download limit.

[mivo]

In spite of my earlier recommendation, I need to advise against using Deluge right now. The current versions have a checksum bug reported here (http://forum.deluge-torrent.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7225) that leads to severe data loss (of already downloaded data) if you have to check/recheck data. This also applies if you want to move data or import it into another client. This affects at least 0.5.9.2 and 0.5.9.3 and the nightly build of 0.6.0 (as of today). Earlier versions also had a different checking/rechecking bug (including the one in the Hardy repository, which also calculates ratio incorrectly).

So right now Deluge is not stable and I would not recommend it for larger downloads. I just lost gigs of data and over a week of time.

[zachtib]

In spite of my earlier recommendation, I need to advise against using Deluge right now. The current versions have a checksum bug reported here (http://forum.deluge-torrent.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7225) that leads to severe data loss (of already downloaded data) if you have to check/recheck data. This also applies if you want to move data or import it into another client. This affects at least 0.5.9.2 and 0.5.9.3 and the nightly build of 0.6.0 (as of today). Earlier versions also had a different checking/rechecking bug (including the one in the Hardy repository, which also calculates ratio incorrectly).

So right now Deluge is not stable and I would not recommend it for larger downloads. I just lost gigs of data and over a week of time.

I've been running into that issue with the 0.6 nightly, as well, though as long as you never close the client while something is downloading, you should be fine.

Hopefully this will be taken care of soon

[Barrucadu]

Interesting, I close and open the client daily (sometimes multiple times a day) and never lost any data. I must just be lucky.

[zachtib]

Interesting, I close and open the client daily (sometimes multiple times a day) and never lost any data. I must just be lucky.

are you running 0.5.x or 0.6?

[mivo]

Interesting, I close and open the client daily (sometimes multiple times a day) and never lost any data. I must just be lucky.

It occurs only (for me) if the data is checked or rechecked ("force recheck"). If you don't do this (or rather: don't have to do it because the download was aborted/interrupted irregularly), the torrent will finish fine. Pausing and closing, and continuing later, seems fine as well. You'll notice that the discrepancy between total percentage and individual file(s) percentages accelerates toward the end of the download.

Just don't recheck/check, or lose power like I did this morning. :)

[Barrucadu]

are you running 0.5.x or 0.6?
0.6, SVN build.

[Foster Grant]

As of right now there is no Linux bittorrent client out that can come close to comparing with that of Utorrent on Windows. Is there any chance of a Linux competitor in the near future?

ps- not trying to bash deluge/ktorrent, but neither come close to utorrent.

Download Transmission.

Problem solved.

[chochem]

Uhm 11 pages worth of promos and hardly anyone cares to engage the orignal poster's question/demand?

I think utorrent won adherents because
1) It's got practically every feature that the competitor (azareus) had (and every one I could ever imagine asking for), but...
2) it isn't a big, fat non-native java monster like azareus. In fact the simple fact, that the developer (ludde) had written the best app in the category and packed it all into one tiny executable (100k at first, grown to some 200, I believe) commanded a lot of respect. Deluge is a neat lookalike but it's written in Python and comes in at some 12 Mb (IIRC) and doesn't incorporate all features even with plugins. And obviously it's hardly noticeable system ressource wise (well, until it starts downloading several Mb/s :)
3) Like Qantas, it never crashes.

EDIT: And I guess I didn't either... but I doubt you'll ever find the perfect clone. A lot of the qualities (ligt weight, speed, featurepacked, stability) are found in different apps but not in a single one. Personally, I favor the whole transmission package including gtk client, daemon, and cli client, especially since one of the developers recent informed me that the different client were all going to connect to the daemon in an upcoming release. So you can have torrents running in the background before your desktop even hits the screen.

[HansKisaragi]

Mainly fast download speed, and low on system resources.

There is no torrent client that gives you speed benefits .. iv tried them all .. If you have open port then its all about the seeders, not the torrent client.

I use Transmission and its pretty good.

[laurielegit]

If you have open port then its all about the seeders, not the torrent client.

on windows it's practically impossible to find/open a port. on ubuntu, its very easy... thus ubuntu is better.

[atomkarinca]

on windows it's practically impossible to find/open a port. on ubuntu, its very easy... thus ubuntu is better.

And here I thought opening a port is done via a router or a modem. Also you can always use UPnP.

[justin whitaker]

As of right now there is no Linux bittorrent client out that can come close to comparing with that of Utorrent on Windows. Is there any chance of a Linux competitor in the near future?

ps- not trying to bash deluge/ktorrent, but neither come close to utorrent.

rtorrent. That's all you need.

:lolflag:

[maniacmusician]

rtorrent. That's all you need.

:lolflag:
use it and love it :)

[ghindo]

rtorrent. That's all you need.

:lolflag:I dunno. You still can't create torrents with rTorrent, much to my dismay. :(

[Greyed]

Uhm 11 pages worth of promos and hardly anyone cares to engage the orignal poster's question/demand?

No, 11 pages where the OP, nor anyone else who likes utorrent, explains what exactly utorrent has the others lack. I notice your message does the same with the line that Deluge does not have as much even with plugins. Great generality, not a specific that anyone can address.

Look, utorrent is nice, I give it that, but no matter how small it is it is marred by the fact it is not native. Simple as that.

[HansKisaragi]

on windows it's practically impossible to find/open a port. on ubuntu, its very easy... thus ubuntu is better.

:lolflag: .. You open the ports in the router firewall, not the OS firewall >_>

[D-EJ915]

µTorrent started readding the same torrents over and over again and I got fed up with it. So I download deluge 0.5.1 or whatever, works fine then all of a sudden doesn't work anymore :/ alright...0.5.3 won't compile...hmm...weird...

so I install kTorrent, yaaaay!!! It's like µTorrent but faster! (ui-wise). Excellent, especially since deluge failed BIG TIME with options, it's a good basic client but I was used to µTorrent's overload of features.

I'll try out rTorrent some time in the future, probably when I get my hard drive back from a friend in the next few days and do a reinstall with that.

[dot2kode]

rTorrent..FTW..period. \\:D/I I was a die hard uTorrent user until i actually learned some cli functions and after that I saw how much wine+utorrent was slowing my computer down and setup rTorrent if you want easier use (GUI) setup torrent flux with transmission. (even though transmission by itself is a cake walk)

kTorrent sometimes runs O K in gnome but I have had a lot of problems with it crashing lately. One reason I noticed it started this was when I enabled a few more desktop customization settings, but as far as memory use and imo everything else rtorrent is awesome. Just takes a little getting use to.

One other side note you need to check on your torrent sites what they allow and do not allow because a lot of the big ones do not allow deluge.

[mivo]

No, 11 pages where the OP, nor anyone else who likes utorrent, explains what exactly utorrent has the others lack.

It's running on my Windows box right now (recently set one up since I wanted a gaming computer), and honestly, unless I am blind or otherwise missing the obvious, I don't see anything in uTorrent that isn't also offered by Deluge (with plugins). The graphical speed bar is missing, I guess. Well, maybe there are advanced features that I never use or need, but I don't see anything. The interface is actually very similar to Deluge. Uses less memory, though, but memory usage is relative anyway.

I never saw a site that doesn't "allow" Deluge, either. I never had any speed issues, eithers, so obviously no seeders or trackers had any problems with it. Why wouldn't say? It's not how bittorrent works anyway. What's up with that FUD?

[fjf]

Yup!. Ktorrent.


µTorrent started readding the same torrents over and over again and I got fed up with it. So I download deluge 0.5.1 or whatever, works fine then all of a sudden doesn't work anymore :/ alright...0.5.3 won't compile...hmm...weird...

so I install kTorrent, yaaaay!!! It's like µTorrent but faster! (ui-wise). Excellent, especially since deluge failed BIG TIME with options, it's a good basic client but I was used to µTorrent's overload of features.

I'll try out rTorrent some time in the future, probably when I get my hard drive back from a friend in the next few days and do a reinstall with that.