Slashdot Mirror

"We have information leading us to believe that the IP address xx.xxx.xxx.xx was used

Really? That happens to be the IP address of my VPN provider.

Seriously, if you torrent anything, get a decent VPN provider. Makes things so much simpler. Be sure to pick one that offers a SOCKS proxy. If the VPN fails, then your bittorrent client is still covering your ass using the proxy.

Oh, and don't use Deluge. It ignored proxy settings for many, many years, exposing its users to law enforcement:
http://dev.deluge-torrent.org/...

uTorrent alternatives you should have moved on to a long time ago; cross platform clients, with clickable links for the lazy:

qBittorrent v3.1.12

Deluge v1.3.11

I think I switched to Deluge about five years ago. It was originally started as an open source Torrent clone, and, well, it's now basically an open source clone of Torrent as it was then. Mission successful I guess.

Transmission is the way to go these days.

http://www.transmissionbt.com/

Any thoughts on Deluge?
http://deluge-torrent.org/

I used uTorrent when it was fairly new and it was excellent but in this day and age does it offer anything versus the number of matured open-source alternatives out there? I'm really asking if it has some special sauce that gives it an edge. When it was released one could look past it's closed source nature since it made it's mark being lightweight yet feature packed. Once the major update that brought advertising on-board I saw no reason to use it anymore.

I've been using qBittorent for a couple years and it gives me all the relevant functionality without the mess as well as Transmission QT for Windows and Deluge, I can see no reason to use uTorrent when it's been shown repeatedly to be scum-ware.

I've never been one to "torrent" things (verbing weirds English!) but I recently needed to download Xubuntu, and a torrent was the best way to get it. So I just recently went looking for a good BT client. I found that almost all of them are either shitty or malware or both.

I picked Deluge because it seemed to be decent, malware-free, and open-source.

Deluge is available for Windows.

Since I use Windows and Linux, I prefer Deluge.

Exactly. The very day they made a bog box appear in the UI advertising their premium 'Plus' version, I guessed the route it was going and ditched it for : Deluge.

Azureus still has the "classic interface"
 
...it's just buried... deeply. Very deeply. As in, I have to google to figure out how to turn it on because it's not immediately obvious how to do it from the GUI. Once you turn off all the "Vuze" cruft, Azureus still makes for a very good client.
 
I'm using Deluge to great effect, moreso since I finally setup an atom-based file server and you can log in to it remotely from another pc/laptop, either through the binary client, or the web interface. deluge-torrent.org

Deluge

I'm not looking forward to 'the next level' of the web. It will only have more dancing and blinking crap on the page.

Want to make you site fast? You don't need Ajax, Flash, or any other "Hype du Jour". Toss it all out, stick with plain old HTML and make it look decent with simple CSS. Wham, your site is now an order of magnitude faster. You don't need those five load balancers and those twenty application servers just to serve up a page that could easily run on one server when you actually had a clue.

Want to view content? I agree with your theme in that case, and there are plenty of sites out there that are designed around just that: simple presentation-focused static content display.

However, most of the impetus for "Web 2.0" has not been around content viewing, but rather about utilizing the web browser as an effective, cross-platform thin client for applications. Now, granted, some sites are (ab)using AJAX and whatnot for purposes ranging from nefarious to just annoying, and there is some spillover from the dynamic application-based web pages into the static information-based ones, but it's generally kept in balance by the ease with which people can transition to a competing website if yours is too annoying.

Recent advancements in Javascript execution speed are oriented towards polishing the thin client experience and capabilities. If fast Javascript execution becomes ubiquitous, sites can design much more successful thin clients because they can take that execution speed for granted. It's not all just flashing lights and annoying ads: take a look at the stunning Deluge BitTorrent Client's Web UI to see how nicely "Web 2.0" can be used.

Are there any particular features that you particularly want uTorrent for, or are you just wanting it because you are already familiar with it in a Winwos environment?

There are a great many Linux native clients you could chose from and while many are text based (which might not be your cup of tea), such as the excellent rtorrent which I tend to use, there are quite a few that are GUI based, of which deluge seems very popular, or are GUI wrappers for working with text based clients (there are several such wrappers for the basic clients, and for recent rtorrent versions too.

Some offer web-based interfaces too, which some find handy if they download to an external machine to reduce the impact on bandwidth quotas and traffic shaping that may be imposed by their ISP.

See this page for a list of clients that you might want to look into.

My requirements were prioritizing, selective downloading, FOSS, a small footprint, and running as service/daemon, and I tried most of the clients on the Wikipedia list that fit these criteria. I liked Deluge most, though I still had a a few problems.

In the end, the problem solved itself when I did the switch from Windows to Linux as my main OS. I use rTorrent, daemonized in screen now and have never looked back. It's very small and has console and (optional) web interfaces.

Oh, and please don't tell anyone I said "FOSS-software".

A major fault that I've seen in numerous sub-threads is the idea that a Java user interface equals Swing. It most certainly does not. Swing is merely Java's complete pure-Java (i.e. cross-platform) user interface geared towards providing a unified look-and-feel. In this respect, it does a good job. While there's nothing inherently wrong with it from a toolkit perspective, it is absolutely not appropriate for usage on the Linux desktop.

Programming for the Linux desktop means more than producing a windowed application; one must integrate their application, both in terms of user interface consistency and application interoperabililty, with a major desktop distribution. Specifically, I'm talking about Linux's "big two" desktop environments, KDE + Qt and GNOME + GTK+. While each of these environments have their preferred languages (C++ and C respectively), many other languages have no issues whatsoever being tightly integrated into them via bindings.

Java is no exception! In Java, I can program a wonderful GNOME/GTK+ application just fine with java-gnome. Similarly, I can program a Qt4 application with Qt Jambi (although I can't seem to find an equivalent KDE4 bindings library) in Java. An application written in either will appear and operate on par with any application written in other languages, either natively (via C or C++) or via another bindings library (Python has a ton of bindings).

Furthermore, just like GTK+ and Qt have cross-platform capability, so do the bindings, and if the appropriate binding library for a given platform is installed on that platform, the Java application, too, will be able to be cross-platform without modification. This is, of course, the job of the distribution and/or installer software, but operates similar to the Deluge (Python) installer for Windows, installing the client port of the toolkit (GTK+, in this case) and the language bindings (PyGTK) alongside the application.

That's exactly how the Mono desktop applications work: they write their logic in native C# and use GTK+ bindings (GTK#, in most cases) to integrate with the Linux desktop environment.

Any Java application written for the Linux desktop that uses Swing over native desktop bindings is foolish. Each has their place, for sure, but on the desktop integration is everything.

Oh, right, links. All links go to screenshots page, unless the home page has some.

Linux:

1. Transmission (Linux, OSX, BSD, Solaris)
2. Deluge (Linux, mediocre Windows port available)

Windows:

1. uTorrent (Windows, Mac beta port available)

I think it took me all of 30 minutes to utterly break every single linux torrent client available. None of them are what I'd call "stable".

Really? Have you tried Deluge? I've never had any problems with it. Not even minor ones.

Try Deluge. I've been using it on Linux, so I don't know how it works on Windows, but it's worth a try. Many have said it's the "uTorrent for Linux," but it's pretty lean and mean overall.

Any plans for a Deluge plugin?

Oh, you meant prioritize by politics, not geography.

No. You can try reading the summary, asshole. Here, I'll repost it here in case you were too lazy to read it above:

"While I live in S.Korea and have virtually unlimited bandwidth in and out of the country, not all my Asian friends are so lucky. Many of the SE Asian and African countries have small international pipes. Even when a user has a high-speed local connection, downloads from abroad will trickle in.
Bittorrent clients apparently don't prioritize other users on the same ISP or at least in the same country. Why is that? Is it difficult to manage? If I were to write a plug-in for, say, Deluge, what hurdles would I be likely to come across? If this functionality is available in other clients or through plug-ins, please chime in."

What's wrong with Azureus? Is there a better open-source client out there that I'm not aware of?

Well, 'better' will always lead to a fight. But personally, I prefer Transmision.

http://transmission.m0k.org/

You can also try Deluge.

http://deluge-torrent.org/

YMMV

Deluge is opensource, and has almost every feature uTorrent has. If I'm going to be using a program for traffic that's as controversial these days as bittorrent it had better be able to demonstrate what it's doing under the hood.

There is nothing wrong with Deluge. It's the best drop in replacement for uTorrent on Linux I've ever come across. Beats Transmission by a mile (and uTorrent in Wine). They have binaries for a few flavours of Linux, Windows and OS X.

The source code for all releases is available here.

I found it in Add/Remove in Ubuntu Hardy. It's got just as many, if not more configuration options as uTorrent, which all other clients I've tried lacked. It's very quick and I'm entirely pleased with it. Even comes with a web GUI if that's your thing.

There is nothing wrong with Deluge. It's the best drop in replacement for uTorrent on Linux I've ever come across. Beats Transmission by a mile (and uTorrent in Wine). They have binaries for a few flavours of Linux, Windows and OS X.

The source code for all releases is available here.

I found it in Add/Remove in Ubuntu Hardy. It's got just as many, if not more configuration options as uTorrent, which all other clients I've tried lacked. It's very quick and I'm entirely pleased with it. Even comes with a web GUI if that's your thing.

The latest deluge release is fantastic. Got the features you want but still nice and light weight.

Deluge works great and has a similar UI to uTorrent. I used to use utorrent in wine until I found it and haven't looked back since.

Deluge works great and has a similar UI to uTorrent. I used to use utorrent in wine until I found it and haven't looked back since.

I'm a big fan of Deluge. It's a nice uTorrent clone that I think fits Gnome best. http://deluge-torrent.org/

If for example, the deluge creator says on his website "Deluge is great for downloading movies without getting caught!" this would be equivalent to what Kazaa said and would result in him being liable to get screwed over.

I don't know, this sounds pretty close (from the FAQ again):

You're totally anonymous. We keep absolutely no logs...which means that even if we're served with a court order to hand over our records, there are no records to hand over. Simple enough :)

I'm all for privacy and security, but it's statements like these that the AA's love to hear.

Why are there ads? Are you turning evil? This is free software! This is free software, however, our proxy servers (which anonymizies the browsing) costs us very real dollars. Also, if you don't use our internal browser, you'll never see an ad. In the spirit of freedom, I openly disclose that it costs around US$800 per month (with a two-month contract) for us to cover the hosting expenses, which we need to make up for somehow, or else it comes out of my personal pocket. Deluge does not have any corporate sponsorship, and I've actually put up my own money, without knowing if the ad revenue will make up for it or not. Why did I do this? Because I really believe that users need an anonymous method of getting their torrents...and I'm hoping very much that our users agree with me and that the ads make up the cost. If we don't make enough from ads, we'll begin requesting donations. If we still don't make enough, then we'll take down the proxy servers and remove Deluge's internal browser (not to mention cry for being in the hole $1600). The future of this service is in your hands.

Yeah, sorry, I tend not to tolerate ads in my browsing experience, why should I put up with them for torrent downloads? Also, I thought ad-supported p2p programs went away with KaZaa?

and...

Can we use the internal browser to surf any site? No. This is a very touchy subject, so I want to be very clear. Our proxy servers have a whitelist of bittorrent-related sites (trackers, index sites, etc), which it allows you to visit. If you try to go to a bittorrent site that's not on our whitelist, please feel free to submit that site to us and we'll add it within 24hrs. We do not discriminate against *any* bittorrent site and will add them on request. However, we want absolutely nothing to do with anonymizing the traffic of pedophiles, sick people who are trying to google on how to get away murder, or whatever else. We want to protect bittorrent and nothing more.

I think this falls under the categories of "Why should we trust your servers?" and "Whitelists suck."

I say this every time the subject of p2p apps comes up: solutions such as these simply add to the arms race between ISP and file-sharers. In the end this will solve nothing. Instead of attempting to out-tech Big Content there should be a focus on improving consumer rights.

Then again this could be an attempt to to show that ads and donations may be a way to support the distribution of content via BT.

I run Miro in the background at all times, and notice that it uses very little bandwidth -- just a hair more than Deluge is using right now. It would be nice to select an external app, but given that you can just set any video player to open files from your Miro download folder, I don't see it as any more hindering than the fact that amaroK gives you no option to play music files in another player from its interface.

You can change the default action for feeds in the options menu. Also, with proper setting of the retention policies, you can be sure it won't swell to unreasonable sizes. I do agree that it would be nice to have more prioritizing and downloading controls.

My vote also once would have gone to uTorrent, which I ran with Wine on Linux, but Deluge is even less bloated without missing any functionality. That it is a native app and GPL, are bonuses, too.

deluge is similar to uTorrent but for gtk. it uses libtorrent (written in c++) with a python/gtk GUI. it's currently very usable but still has minor bugs and is pre version 1.0

it can probably be gotten to run on OSX, altho it will use gtk so maybe that doesn't cut it under "efficiency"

oh and the forum has a section labeled "osx port" so one is perhaps in the works using a native gui :)

http://deluge-torrent.org/
http://forum.deluge-torrent.org/index.php

deluge is similar to uTorrent but for gtk. it uses libtorrent (written in c++) with a python/gtk GUI. it's currently very usable but still has minor bugs and is pre version 1.0

it can probably be gotten to run on OSX, altho it will use gtk so maybe that doesn't cut it under "efficiency"

oh and the forum has a section labeled "osx port" so one is perhaps in the works using a native gui :)

http://deluge-torrent.org/
http://forum.deluge-torrent.org/index.php

This is yet another attempt to curtail my rights online. Azureus has sold its soul to the content mafia and is attempting to destroy the Bittorrent community. Utorrent has also sold out to Hollywood fascists. The way I see it, corporate software is the problem here. Do you ever notice native Linux torrent clients don't have this problem? Thank the gods for *nix torrent clients, like rTorrent and Deluge. If you're still on Winblows, sorry charlie. That's what happens when you let Micro$oft and other proprietary Nazis on your box. To all the corporate whores who want a piece of my upload bandwidth to further your goals of DRM, I say "Fuck you". Fuck co-optation and selling out; your infected files will go straight to /dev/null, assholes.