Azureus Inc. Moves Toward Commercialization
SamBob writes "Future releases of the most popular BitTorrent client, Azureus, will come bundled with a 'platform' for media companies to promote their product to Azureus' multi-million users, reports Slyck.com. Azureus Inc., who are the newly formed company behind the Azureus software, plan to generate a profit from the platform in the future, but in the short-term are hoping to help independent film companies find their audience."
In the current anti p2p world, i dont think thats such a good idea. Now they will be a direct target.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Am I the only one who thinks that this really means that it is going to be the next Kazaa?
English is easier said than done.
As long as there is no way the same media companies can track what you download elsewhere, I don't see the problem in this. Is Azereus open source? If it is there won't really be a way to hide snooping software in there.
I believe it'll be a good thing that will help Bittorrent be seen in a better light. I just hope it'll remain as cross-platform as the bittorrent client.
If they make it annoying at all, what's to prevent people from switching to the slew of other BT apps out there? Given the fact that advertising is almost always made to catch the eye, it'll have a hard time not annoying users. Frankly, I'd switch to something else even if it was a static clickable banner.
Fill in your four or five-letter word of wisdom here _ _ _ _ _.
I would have to say that I prefer the official BitTorrent client from Bram Cohen. It is a simple, elegant solution. I do notice that every time I look at a peer list it is filled with Azureus, but only a handful of the official client. Azureus is just too large of a program for the purpose of jumping on to a swarm and downloading. And now they want to add more to it. BitTorrent is really good for a few things like minimizing bandwidth for content distributors, but people want to bend it to be a general purpose p2p network.
The client is open source, no?
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
All you have to do is, say, convince Cartoon Network or Sci-Fi to publish their TV shows (with commercials intact) through Azureus. Users provide most of the bandwidth, content is delivered in a manner that earns providers money, and Azureus takes a slice off the top.
And suddenly we won't see HBO suing for people downloading the latest Sopranos. We'll see HBO distributing episodes for $1-2 to anybody who wants on the private tracker. Or better yet, users simply subscribe to the HBO/Azureus service and can download any available content they want that month and view as they please. Keep the price reasonable and the only pirates you have to battle are the people who wouldn't pay for your service even if they couldn't decrypt your works.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Yep.
Today's the day I make the switch to uTorrent. It's a single executable file less than 160 kb in size.
I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
It looks like it's time to migrate to utorrent if you haven't already. There no commercialization associated with it and it's much faster. The only downside is that it's for windows only.
I fail to see why one BT client going to a corporate platorm would all of a sudden cause this.
Bitorrent has been used to share those kinds of files that appeared on kazaa, etc. for years already.
Welcome to the club. I gave up on Azureus a few months ago. (Micro)torrent is a really good app.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
Took a look at their site and it looks like they have some uncomfortable ties to the copyright cartel, and they're enough smoke they've spent quite a few words to convince us there's no fire. I think I'll stick with open source clients.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
I am not sure how much of this is due to Azureus and how much to SWT, but whatever the cause the result is a completely unusable product.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
So, how long before someone will start an ad-free fork?
Yes, you're right, but what do you use instead? - What else supports encryption (absolutely must for most UK users these days to avoid throttling) and allows you to prioritize files in a collection? And has all those other useful features like decentralised source sharing, etc?
You have a problem with copyrights whenever they're used to stop people from distributing pirated movies and warez, but you're all for them when they're used to protect GPL software? You're a hypocrite.
So is this just a tracker where you have to pay to download torrent files or something?
Exactly. And that's not a hypocritical position--the fact that the GPL derives its power from copyright law is a clever hack which wouldn't be necessary if copyright didn't exist. You see, for the GPL to be invalid, so must copyright law. Of course you no doubt already know this and are just trolling. Love your books, BTW.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
although i have no concrete proof, i believe it sucks on osx because the ppc java virtual machine is poo. (i dont have an intel mac so i cant say if its any better on osx/intel). i have an old 1GHz windows pc with a mere 1/2 GB of ram that i do my torrenting on because its just much less sluggish, and thats using it over remote desktop. i really hope the switch to intel leads to a more optimised JVM for the new macs
TIAEAE!
Bram's client does what it says on the tin, so to speak, and no more. Can't ask for any more than that. Well, maybe a standard Windows file selector in the Windows client, that would be the only thing I would want to change, as at the moment (pedants please correct me) it is using the Gimp Toolkit for its UI, complete with GTK file selector. Yuck.
Still not enough to make me want to use anything else though. There may be better Windows clients, but I know that I trust the official B/T client in a way that I don't think I could trust the others.
There are numerous OS X Bit-torrent apps, but it took me a while to find one that's fast and connects to as many peers as Azureus. Transmission (http://transmission.m0k.org/) seems to be the ticket. It's simple and Cocoa-based. I'm using a recent SVN build of it. I'm glad to be rid of Azureus, with its resource hogging and its Mac-inconsistent interface.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I'm not sure if all of you just want to post ASAP or can't read but this does not mean they will bundle azureus with adware of any sorts. AFAIK, a content layer will just provide a way of getting free content (they said in TFA that they have not yet analyzed any serious payment methods so this could mean it will be free, or not). Too bad they won't let the big distributors come into play:
:).
"Large movie studios and record labels will not be targeted for the project, as the Azureus team do not believe that they are ready yet. "You're not going to see Star Wars or Batman quite yet," joked Rohter."
So basically everybody will be allowed to make a movie, then post it on this platform, and if I will like the "genre" I will just download it... Kindof
Anyway, I think it's premature to judge anything until we see what they've got.
I've installed Azureus on LFS, Slackware, PCLinuxOS, Kubuntu, Windows XP and I've yet to encounter a problem. While it has it's fair share of complaints (mem+cpu mostly), it's a pretty polished OSS application. Unless you're talking about Macs (which I've never tried it on), I'd say it's quite possible that you're either trolling or creating the problem yourself.
I'm hoping you've at least checked the Wiki thoroughly.
http://azureus.aelitis.com/wiki/index.php/Main_PaI think this is a bad move for the Azureus team. The need to make some money is turning the team away from building the best generalized BitTorrent implementation, so that it can become something that can generate some cash. I think that will ultimately kill it in it's new form, but it's present for may live on under new developers.
I don't mind that the team has this desire to profit from their work, they should. But this new development is unfortunate (for we users of current Azureus).
The community who has made Azureus popular has done so because the program is a really novel and effective implementation of the BitTorrent protocol for general purposes. It's supremely useful.
What they (the Azureus team) want to do with it now is very different and more narrowly defined. I don't think they understand that the audience which made their program popular is not necessarily the same (not at all the same IMHO) audience that might enjoy a P2P client with pay-per-download content.
I think many will bail to other general BitTorrent clients, and/or the source of Azureus will fork and a new crop of developers will continue to carry forward the original mission of the program: to make it the best and most portable general BitTorrent implementation.
USNG: 14TPU4605
As long as Azureus program continues to meet my needs, I don't have to switch. They aren't going to sell the Azureus software to end users. How the content model ends up being fiscally viable, we don't know yet. Just because something isn't open-source doesn't mean I'm searching for crappy clients to find something else. Commercialization in some respect represents the maturity and popularity of the software. I certainly don't begrudge them that. It's their baby. They can choose to open-source it and to close it. It's up to individuals whether they want to stick with it or not. But I can guarantee you that most of the off-the-cuff comments I see around here "Well, it's time to move to another" will not come to fruition. Easy to say. Tough to do.
I always thought it was pronounced "micro-torrent."
What?
Time to move to uTorrent... I liked Azureus shame how all good open source software is just made into a company now. And with that they will be more in the legal fire for illegal shareing as the media still do not know that many legal uses of bit torrent are praticed but Hollywood as just put the impresion that thousands of communist and terrorist pirates are downloading films and music destroing the world. In reality BT is the ideal way to distribute linux distros and other large files to save on bandwith.
That Azureus was being used commercially is an old story : the company Aelitis , whose members are the Azureus developpers, made an extra layer of integration to add below Azureus, to make it more efficient from a commercial standpoint.
Azureus is a great piece of software. uTorrent might be functional enough, but it's no Azureus.
People need to cut the best (and free as in speech) client some slack. It might use obscene amounts of RAM but when somebody can point me to a client I can run in commandline mode that auto-updates itself, supports DHT, supports regexp scanning RSS feeds, runs on Linux, automatically queues torrents from a given directory, I might consider switching.
Heck, Azureus is worth buying another 512MB stick of RAM for, just so you can get files at a reasonable speed from a reasonably large userbase. Frankly I'm alarmed people would rather use proprietary software that is written by somebody that works with an anti-p2p company. Who knows what uTorrent has in it?
Do any other BT clients offer RSS functionality?
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND /Applications/Azureus.app/Contents/MacOS/java_swt -psn_0_1048577
ben 267 6.1 14.0 540848 127992 ?? S 6Apr06 4258:54.27
After running for 23 days (and 44GB of transfers), activity monitor reports 124MB of real memory, 528MB of virtual.
Dividing the CPU time by the number of minutes it's been running yields 12.8% average CPU usage.
This is on a G4 1GHz with 896MB of ram.
I've never seen the cpu utilization issue or the window resize issue.
I'll just have to remember to not upgrade it anymore.
I'm going to seem like a jerk saying this, but...you don't sound like much of an 'experienced' user then. Azureus is simple to use. Its a point and click application...what *does* make a difference is if you are trying to use plugins or if you're behind a router. There is plenty of information in their FAQ if you read through their site. Really the only con to Az is that it utilizes java...which still hogs too many resources imo. I hate the orig. BT client as it has basically no options. There is no inherent 'protection'. Perhaps I'm missing something? If there are add-ons/plugins for the program, please, do inform me. Honestly I don't see what Az will gain by gong commericial. They have to know that once they do just about all the people using it will convert to something different. Unless...of course they are able to provide some sort of decent legit content along with full support. The full support will be the breaker. If people purchase a product, yet can't get help on configuring it then they will not use it or try to return it.
"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Ktorrent, GnomeTorrent (and Gnome is a GNU FSF app so you can expect it to be as ANTI DRM as it can be so long as the FSF stays true to RMS's vision (Richard M. Stallman, for those of you who need your geek cards revoked). :) I'm noticing a disturbing trend towards closed source solutions and commercialization.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Maybe he should upgrade (if he hasn't already) to the latest gtk+. The file selector has been replaced with a better one.
I was talking about the Windows client, I'm sure I mentioned that repeatedly. If there are GTK+ libraries I should have installed, I don't. I know what the old file selector was like (vastly worse), but the new one still isn't great in a Windows environment. In any case, I'm sure it is unnecessary to have any separate libraries installed as at the end of the day the official B/T client for windows is just a statically-linked binary, containing it's own GTK+ libraries. Thanks for the Linux-centric advice though, it was most informative.
I believe you are both right. As it is written, it would be pronounced mee-torrent in modern Greek, but I have observed that in english a mee is often pronounced moo. That pronounciation may have its roots in how it was pronounced in archaic-Greek (some letters were pronounced slightly different than in modern Greek). Anyway, whenever a mee is put in front of something else, it often is an abbreviation for 'micro'. Just as um (slashdot apperantly doesn't support Greek characters, sorry) is an abbreviation for micro-meter.
The 'u' in utorrent is the greek small letter mu and is pronounced "mew" or "myoo".
SI uses the symbol to represent the prefix micro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu
Anyways, apparently the author pronounces it "you"-torrent. I personally prefer mu torrent.
One would think that before they scale up, they'd make what they actually have work. From my experiance, the Azerus will go through about 3 gigs of memory in 2 hours via a nice huge memory leak under Java 1.5, and just fail abjectly under anything less. I'm not sure that I want a group that can't even implement something cleanly in Java, of all languages, to start breaking ground on anything else quite yet.
"My heart is in the work." - Andrew Carnegie
Problem is, what else is out there for the Mac? I'm still using Azureus with pretty much the same problems as you simply because I can't find anything that offers the nice 'traditional P2P' two pane interface with the close-up detail windows for each torrent, nor the ability to pick and choose or prioritise files within a torrent. Anyone out there got any recomendations (OSX compatible)? uTorrent looks like exactly what I need, but it's windows only.
Lies. Azureus is great for what i use it for. Upnp support, encryption, graphical swarm trees, the ability to download only from specific seeders/peers, the ability to throttel my speeds at will...The list goes on. Alot of people say azureus is bloated, but those people have not availed of azureus` full range of features. It more than deserves it's place at the top of the list. However, i am nervous as to this "advertising" that's going to be implimented. if it's implimented in a non-invasive, "banner ad" type way, i will continue to use Azureus as my client of choice. However, if they impliment "tracking cookies, website loggers" etc, and take my information, then by god ill make the switch to uTorrent faster than you can say "John mcgillacuddy"
No, this is like a guy who loans his van out his friends in exchange for a few beers suddenly realising that there's money to be made in setting up a self-drive hire business; they only supply you with the means of distribution, not what you deliver with it.
Please do not assume bittorrent == illegal. Much as the RIAA don't want you to know it, it's the content that counts.
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
I've only used it on OS X, and here it is a travesty. The GUI doesn't do live resizing (unlike every other OS X app). You often need to do a small resize to persuade the GUI to actually draw in the right place. The widgets don't behave quite like the ones that look the same in other apps. After an hour or so of use, it climbs to over 0.5GB of RAM usage (in-core size, not just VM size). It somehow seems to leak CPU - after a couple of hours it will be using 100% of my CPU for no observable reason.
I am not sure how much of this is due to Azureus and how much to SWT, but whatever the cause the result is a completely unusable product.
I concur. I had the exact same experience and thus concluded that it was unusable.
I get punished all the time around here when I bash Java, but Azureus is yet another example where it just seems to be true that Java for cross platform GUI platform lives up to the saying "write once, debug everywhere". Matlab, SAS, Wordperfect, Oracle Universal Installer, you name it, I get the email or phone call saying "Its broken again...". People defend Java saying that nobody on the planet knows how to do Java correctly, and that is the problem. They are probably correct. Now, mod me down.
I use Bits On Wheels. It's closed source and doesn't have all the niftiest features, but it works quite well for me.
Great, now we're going to have adware thrown at us, our searches will be reported to the MPAA/RIAA/Sony and we "mysteriously" won't be able to download any music or video anymore.
Mind you, my ISP is TalkTalk, so I can't even download legal content (like Fedora DVD's) as they throttle it, and it seems have even found a way to block Azureus 2.4.0.2's encrypted streams - actually I think they block the tracker requests.
I'll have to have another go at hacking the encryption into launchmany-curses.py or fire up uTorrent under VMWare (anyone know if it works in WINE?)
#include <sig.h>
I do occasionally check their info page though, to see if they've changed it..
It's not just performance, though that would be bad enough. It's also the look and feel, including some very bizarre choices by the UI designers (if they even have any) about what features to expose where and to whom, aside from all the aforementioned problems with "ghastly undead widgets" syndrome and lack of integration into Mac OS X.
Bonsai Kitten: TNG
I prefer the pithier "Write once, suck everywhere."
Bonsai Kitten: TNG
You don't consider Windows to have a huge memory footprint itself?
But at least the major national OEMs make and sell computers with the footprint of Windows XP or Mac OS X plus a couple apps in mind, not the footprint of Windows XP or Mac OS X + Java virtual machine + a couple apps. And like many Slashdot users, you appear to underestimate how much Windows XP can be slimmed down: turn off enough unessential services, and it's just as lean as Windows 2000 ever was.
What he's probably referring to is the requirement to tweak all sorts of goofy values in the 10,000-page (or so it seems) and confusing-as-hell preferences screen in order to get it to get the same speeds that other bittorrent clients get by default. I have this problem as well; it seems like since my connection is 3mbps down and 768kbps up, it's somehow hosing Azureus because they're assuming your upload and download pipes are the same size... but that's just a theory. I consider myself a pretty advanced user, but I can't make heads or tails out of Azureus' complicated-as-hell prefs screen, and I certainly don't understand it well enough to make it work as well as the official Bittorrent client.
Comment of the year
the fact that the GPL derives its power from copyright law is a clever hack which wouldn't be necessary if copyright didn't exist.
You're right. Some people will chime in, claiming that without copyright GPL loses its copyleft teeth and becomes equivalent to the FreeBSD license, but without copyright it also becomes lawful to make and distribute commented disassemblies of proprietary software.
On other systems... uTorrent running on Wine? Virtual Machine?
Do you seriously think Mac OS X + Microsoft Virtual PC + Microsoft Windows XP + uTorrent has a smaller footprint than Mac OS X + JVM + Azureus?
I've got an unbalanced up/down as well with 1500/256. While it's not as fast as your link, I have no trouble maxxing out my connection without getting into the more esoteric options.
Transfer/Max connections per torrent: Apart from setting your ports up properly, setting up/down speed correctly and choosing a torrent with a good seeds/peers ratio this seems to be the most important thing. I set this to 200 as opposed to the default 70 or 80. While I haven't tested it, I'd imagine that higher connection numbers would increase resource drain on your system.
In part, Azureus and the BitTorrent programs are attractive because they are free software—users are free to run, share, and modify the software. By contrast, uTorrent is non-free software—users can't be sure what they're really running because they can't inspect the program or get others they trust to inspect the software for them. If uTorrent doesn't do what a user wants, changes are difficult to implement (if not effectively impossible) and are not legally allowed besides. Don't think about helping your community by improving uTorrent and distributing the improved version, users can't legally do that either. Despite these restrictions, the uTorrent refers to the situation uTorrent users face as "support" in the uTorrent FAQ which frames the issue not from the perspective that users deserve software freedom, but the more narrow developmental goals of the Open Source movement which merely shrugs slightly disappointedly at proprietary software.
Apparently it takes so little to get some to give up their software freedom, even in circumstances where there are perfectly capable free software programs to do the same job.
Digital Citizen
Works very well, bittorrent-console lends it'self to scripting and is very useful.
... Standards and Practices !
PenGun
Do What Now ???
I wish I had mod points...
A funny thing is happening with the updates.
I use Azureus but have been leery of the updates --I like to look at the changelog first rather than mindlessly clicking on the [OK to Autoupdate] button. That's why I'm still using v2.4.0.0 and ignoring the update available for v2.4.0.2.
Reading this Slashdot news today, I decided to try to autoupdate my Azureus (from Help > Check For Updates). It listed two updates with checkboxes that were available: the Core Update v2.4.0.2, and a new version of the Auto-Updater. Apparently with the new Auto-Updater, it can autoupdate automagically without giving you a chance to stop the auto update. That wasn't something I wanted --I *always* want to know when my software is changing on me-- so I unchecked the box.
And it automatically checked itself again.
Apparently I cannot choose not to update to the new automagic updater if I choose to update. The only thing I can do is not update at all and stay with 2.4.0.0 rather than 2.4.0.2.
Which got me to thinking: if I downloaded v2.4.0.2 directly (which I have already done, but I haven't installed it), would it already come built in with a way to upgrade itself to the commercial ad-driven version with no way for us to stop it?
Yeah, colour me paranoid. I'm glad it's GPL.
(And, yes, Azureus + the JVM have a huge memory footprint on my machine. Using Linux kernel 2.6.3 with Mandrake 10.0o)
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
I had been using Azureus for quite a long time, but recently started to look for an alternative because Azureus is such an enormous resource-hog. I wasn't optimistic; Azureus has a lot of great features that I didn't want to part with. Then I found uTorrent. It has most, if not all of the features that I loved about Azureus, and it's extremely resource-efficient. Minutes after I ran uTorrent for the first time, I was uninstalling Azureus.
true, but it hes definitly improved in it's unresponsive, crash prone, and resource hungry ways. still, put a few torrents to work and you need a second pc. i figure its bittorrent in general. haven't tried uTorrent yet though.
Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
I know what mu is, I was just pointing out that the client prides itself on being very small and therefore the mu is used to denote "micro" rather than the letter itself. At any rate, I refer to it as "you-torrent," and I pronounce mu, "myoo".
What?
It seems I have understood the article/news release in a very different way and it didn't seem as "spyware" "sellout" etc. to me.
Read.
BTW, I am not a "fan" of the product, I use official bittorrent for OS X to download couple of stuff I see at http://legaltorrents.com/ occasionally.
Yes, but here's my point: Using the official Bittorrent client, I don't have to do any of that to get a good download speed. It just plain works with no tinkering. The ability the tinker isn't bad, but it should have sane defaults so people who just want to download things can get to it.
Comment of the year
Your experience is not congruent with mine.
I use it on OSX, have been for 3 years now. The GUI isn't perfect, yes, that's true, but I don't much care. It has the features I want exposed, even if it did take slightly longer to find them all. The interface is definitely a bit slow too, I'll grant... but it's no big deal.
It does take a nice big chunk of memory, but I haven't experienced any 'leaks' and CPU usage, while significant, is stable. I generally close it if I'm going to play an FPS or the like, but it's not a problem to keep it open while using the web, email, or whatnot.
And this is on a fairly old Mac, a ~600MgHz G4.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
"The GUI isn't perfect" has to be the understatement of the year. I can't think of any non-X11 OS X apps with a worse interface... except Lotus Notes (also Java.)
Comment of the year
Users don't give up anything when they choose uTorrent(okay, the ten minutes it takes to figure it out). They can switch away at any time, with minimal loss of anything.
The fact that other torrent clients are open source does make those clients more transparent, and therefore easier to trust, but being closed source doesn't make uTorrent impossible to trust. Also, for most users, "runs well" is a much more important selection criteria than "I can hack it". Proof of this is in the pudding, popular software often runs better than the competition and crap doesn't get users.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_BitTorr ent_clients
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
He wouldn't need a sysadmin, now would he? ;-)
Honestly, why should I care?
.torrent is there. And 99% of the time, it's down in the dock doing its stuff with the GUI swapped out anyhow.
This is a utility program, not a beauty pageant contestant.
It's got a job to do. It does it, as well or better than any other option.
The GUI isn't pretty, but it is superbly functional. Just about anything you might ever need to do with a
And I disagree that it's a 'bad interface' - it's just not a particularly pretty one. A *bad interface*, to me, would be one that doesn't allow me to access a function I need, or one that misleads me, misdirects me, into doing x when I wanted to do y. So the Azureus interface is actually a pretty good one, I'd say.
Of course, if you honestly think it's more important to look good, than to function well, then I guess it's not for you...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Given how bad java sucks, does it actually matter?
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Thank you very much Azureus. Good luck.
Hopefully some bright programmers will fork the code and keep Azureus alive and updated in its current form.
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
RTFA, it doesn't say anything about advertisements or banners. Think of it more like Steam (like, for Half Life) except instead of games, it's movies/other media (really, it can be any arbitrary digital media but right now they're targeting indie movies).
Non-free software is never trustworthy. Even if it does not contain anything nasty now, it may do so at any point, and it's not trivial (reverse-engineering required) to detect when it does so.
All users benefit from free software, whether or not they intend to hack the software themselves, just as all citizens benefit from free speech whether or not they intend to demonstrate outside Parliament themselves.
The reason there are multiple trustworthy torrent clients to switch to is because those clients are open-source, and the existence of such alternatives is what keeps closed-source equivalents "honest" to some extent - but make no mistake about it, non-free software always reduces our freedom, it is intrinsic to the nature of non-free software.
For a long while, I used Azureus. Then I tried out uTorrent. I found uTorrent to be superior software by far. Guess which client I use now.
Open source is great, but I'm not going to use inferior software so I can feel a little warm and fuzzy. I'm going to use the one that works.
I started using Azereus despite the Java crap because it was the only one that used UDP or TCP NAT hole punching (or whatever they call it) so I didn't have to open up any ports. I've since found uTorrent, which is closed source, but I can actually play games while it runs in the background and if they start packaging spyware with their client, I'll just move on to the next one.
Don't ever feel obligated to stick to doing one thing. I suppose that's part of the reason why I go to Digg for my news first now anyway.
"They don't have to offer anything period, legitimate nor otherwise."
[From the FAQ]
"Azureus has a built in tracker to allow users to share torrents directly, rather than uploading them to an "external" tracker. This is called "hosting" and can be performed by selecting this option from the context menu on the "My Torrents" view."
My my, no central tracker for the "legitimate" copyright holder to target.
"For different reasons, you may want to prevent access to your computer to certain lists of IPs."
Tsk, tsk. Keeps them pesky "legitimate" copyright holders out of the works.
"Access to the tracker web pages and the tracker announce process can be controlled by password settings specified on the Tracker configuration panel. This supports basic authentication and as such the user name and password values are transmitted in plain text. This can further be protected by using SSL (below). Note that password protecting the tracker announce process requires a BitTorrent client capable of handling authentication, such as Azureus. Communication with the tracker can be encrypted using SSL, again this requires a suitable client such as Azureus."
Now that's no way to treat the "legitimate" copyright holder.
"The following encapsulation protocol is designed to provide a completely random-looking header and (optionally) payload to avoid passive protocol identification and traffic shaping. When it is used with the stronger encryption mode (RC4) it also provides reasonable security for the encapsulated content against passive eavesdroppers."
Uh, oh. Hide and go seek with "legitimate" content.
Azureus is not a 100% pure Java app. It uses SWT - IBMs embrace & extend for Java. SWT uses native peers, but it does not render well on other platforms (i.e. other than Windows).
If Azureus used Swing, it would render aswell, or as badly, on OSX as everything else.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
Sure, non free software is never absolutely trustworthy, but if 10 million people are using it, that's good enough for me. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. "I can see the source" is not the singular way to build trust. I already copped to open source software being easier to trust.
The other point I was reaching for was that if the benefits of using closed(non free, whatever) software outweigh the benefits I derive from the community you speak of(they often do), then the rational thing to do(assuming I don't place a large intrinsic value on software-libre itself) is to use the closed software.
If the choice is between exactly equivalent software except that one is open and one is closed, open is clearly the better choice. For software that isn't exactly equivalent, the choice is less clear; I'm not sure exactly how much my 'software freedom' is worth. My behavior suggests that I don't place too high a value on it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I like OSS as much as anyone else but let's judge software on its ability to do the job and its functionality, shall we? Any BT client that uses less processing power than a half-decent firewall is commendable IMO. I trust a developer that can write a good client and appease the user community more than OSS developers and its community deluded about how good their client is. Surely it must be my computer's fault that it is old hardware and cannot handle the BT protocol and traffic.
When I used to use Azureus it basically put my computer to a stand-still as far as doing anything else. Ever since I switched from Azureus to uTorrent, I never looked back. I can do anything else that my computer is able to do; including playing the most demanding games my computer can handle. That's the whole point of uTorrent. I don't think any other client beats it on any performance metric.
Timeless Rogue Star - Defile Convention - Transcend Time, Life, the Universe, and Everything.
What the parent post and grand-parent post is missing in their comments is mention of whether they are using Macs with Intel Dual Core for Azureus. SWT (a component used by Azureus + Eclipse) haven't been ported to the Mac-Intel Architecture yet, and thus either requires Rosetta emulation or it just doesn"t properly work. It's been four months already, and still Adobe, SWT, all open source video players and Office suites haven't been ported yet to that platform. As you can see, this isn't a problem about Java, but a problem about applications switching to a new platform. If the Azureus team kept a 100% pure Java version of Azureus that used something like Swing, they wouldn't have to suffer the tradeoff that came with using JNI.
I thought that these days Azureus had a nice wizard that asked you a few questions and set things up appropriately the first time it was run.
I first switched to Azureus when it picked up UPnP support which made it work 'magically' with my router. Setting up the firewall was the biggest bittorrent pain with other clients I tried at that time (though no doubt many of them have picked up support for UPnP now).
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I wouldn't say it's trivial to find "nasty stuff" in an open-source client, either.
Sure, it may be easier - but how many people out of those who use Azureus are able to comprehend all of the code that goes into it? And how many of those people re-read the code upon every new release?
Azureus is a Java program and the Java Runtime Environment is a resource hog. But, it does allow Aelitis to write one version and offer it for a multitude of different OSes. Otherwise I bet it would be Windows-only and that would suck.
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
I would second your post. I have fought with a rather expensive specialized program (PIXCI's XCAP camera software) written in Java and it is absolutely what you describe- slow, buggy, and crappy on both Windows and Linux. However, Azureus runs like a gazelle compared to XCAP. Maybe Java just has a continuum of crappiness from "just slightly crappy" down to "Windows ME."
Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
>users are free to run, share, and modify the software.
How many people even modify Azareus? Hell, why are they always begging for money when most OSS projects seem to do well without? OSS is nice when it works and produces a good product but its ugly as sin when it produces a bloaty java app and evangelists badmouth a decent closed alternative for the sake of ideology. Not to mention sticking to AZ for the sake of OSS steals thunder from other OSS projects and might be a disincentive to start a new one.
Whenever it's learned on here that someone wants to actually get paid for what they do, they're immediately branded as the spawn of Satan.
I dislike a lot of what corporations do as much as the next person, but do we really need this kneejerk response that anybody who wants to make *any* money at all is declared soulless, ravening evil?
People need to eat, and they generally also want to do a lot of other things...and last I checked, food and most of said other things usually cost money. That has to come from somewhere, and what I really think is wrong is the idea that the only morally legitimate means of earning it is sitting in a cubicle like a battery chicken for eight (or however many more) hours a day.
If you're going to come back at me with the "donation" response as well, don't bother. I'm aware that the only real reason why 98% of the readership of this site believe that making money from software is evil is because Richard Stallman said so...not because they themselves actually have a reason for said belief.
Yes, the corporate rampage in a lot of different areas is a problem...but kneejerk, mindless Communism is too. They're both extremes, and they're both equally undesirable. RMS is as much a destructive fanatic in his own way as Gates or Ballmer are in theirs. Both sides want to remake the world in *their* own image, and to hell with what anybody else wants.
A lot of people here pride themselves on being intellectuals...but sometimes, some of you really don't act like it.
I run Azureus exclusively on a 400Mhz PII-class celeron; it runs just fine with no obscene CPU usage (definitely nothing like the 40% you quote). I regularly get download speeds in excess of 600KB/s with no CPU or memory issues whatsoever. Are you running an older JRE? Older JREs don't play well with Azureus and are known to cause CPU-hogging issues, among other things.
--booj
Why do you give a shit about the copyrights of the members of the ??AA?
+++ATH0
in the right direction, IMO, it'll mean that there'll be some legal BT content out there, which, quite frankly, is almost non-existant atm. However, once it starts advertising larger companies, with copyrights ... bad news.
I don't think you understand. 80% of UK ISPs blindly throttle bittorrent by protocol header to 20KB/sec or bellow, so you cannot change the port number or make sure your firewall is configured correctly or anything else. Without RC4 encryption there is no hope of getting speeds better than a fifth of the provided bandwidth or bellow, even on the new 8mbps expensive contracts.
s
Please see this: http://azureus.aelitis.com/wiki/index.php/Bad_ISP
Can somebody recommend a client for Linux that allows me to limit the range of IP addresses to which the client can establish connections [using the rules written in an ipfilter.dat, or something similar].
Non-Java please. I've been looking for such a client, but still failed to find one. Any tips will be appreciated.
The saddest poem
It's not only, or even particularly, that you personally can see the source, though that comes along with it. That's a common misconception - what would I do with the source anyway, many/most people say quite understandably. Yet that's missing the point, which is threefold:
Quote:
That's also quite common, and if I may say so, quite short-sighted as well. The analogy to free speech is quite apt, as many people place similarly little intrinsic value on traditional liberties they have taken for granted, being willing, even eager, to give up freedoms and accept the extension of government powers (arrest, detention, trial, national identity, expression, etc, etc) in the name of fighting terrorism, pornography, efficiency, or whatever other excuse is flavour of the day.
Those people won't squawk until their freedom is gone, and it's far too late then. It is just the same with software, and that's why some of us, such as Richard Stallman, myself, and many more, bang on and on about free/libre software being important, even to the extent of eschewing non-free software however technically capable it may be.
Non-free software is a trap, however tempting the bait may be, and frequently the only thing that keeps non-free software honest is the existence of an escape route in the form of free alternatives, preventing the trap from fully closing. How much better to take the escape route first? Contrariwise, every user that goes to closed-source weakens the free alternative, reducing the open community, and bringing nearer the extinction of that escape route.
When it's gone, recovering the freedom you once had is extremely difficult, requiring toil, tears, sweat, and blood - just as recovering political freedoms once lost is a desperately uphill battle.
First, thank you for your thougtful and rational reply, there isn't enough of that going around.
Moving in a more practical direction, rather than what if's, I use Bloglines. There are free software alternatives, but none that somebody else manages, which is a huge feature, it just works. I can export my subscription list in a standard format any time I want. Why shouldn't I use bloglines?
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
From what I can see of it, Bloglines is not only software, but are also providing web services, which means that additional considerations apply, whether or not source code for the application is available.
For a conventional downloaded application that you then use directly on your own computer, the argument is fairly well worked out and easy to make, for example choosing to use a free/libre torrent client rather uTorrent, OpenOffice rather than MS-Office, ClamAV rather than Antivir, etc, etc.
It is not only about the practical drawbacks that directly affect you, such things as what it might actually be doing "under the covers", what happens if the vendor discontinues it or unilaterally changes the terms, pricing, etc, with the next version/security upgrade, and all the usual arguments on those lines. Your use of closed-source applications also has a wider impact on everyone:
When it comes to web services, other considerations impact. By signing up to the site, you are probably entering into some sort of ongoing contract, rather different to buying a product. Though I note that the desire of software vendors to transfer to a rental/subscription model rather than the sale of an instance of a copy of the software is one of the drawbacks of conventional closed-source applications.
Going back to Bloglines for a moment, one notices that while they use free/open source software to provide web applications, they also impose conditions on their web services that would not be acceptable for a free/libre application. For example:
Terms like that would make a conventional stand-alone application non-free, even if the source code was available, and using web services to impose conditions like that on applications built on top of free/libre software is part of what's intended to be addressed by changes to the GPL in version 3.
The point being that we wish to preserve a fundamental set of freedoms for users of software (however the application is delivered) as follows:
I agree with you. I keep using Azureus because it has a lot of features that I can't find elsewhere and it's a workhorse. Ditto on the interface and because many of the advanced options I'm looking for aren't hidden. Instead, they come with educational labels or tooltips.
I'm also impressed by the plug-ins because they are hosted online but the installation wizard provides descriptions and makes for a one-click install. The auto-update system is excellent: notify user of update, download update, *share* udpate (as a good P2P app should), and then remove update automatically.
Ditto on the CPU utilization, no problems here and I'm running a 600 MHz G3 (with 640 MB of RAM).
I don't mind that they remind users that, while the program is free (as in libre) software, it takes a lot of work and donations are welcome. I think that's one solution to bringing money into free software -- grassroots education that inspires generous action. If there's no notification or outlet for users to donate and participate, it shouldn't be surprising that they don't.
I could go on and on about this proect...but in the end, "I dig it."
" If Azureus is great, why would you switch to uTorrent so quickly?" Quite simply, i dispise spyware. Of any form. That being said, im not ignorant of the way the world works. i know that people need to get paid, that people need to eat. that money needs to come from somewhere, and that money is usually derived from ad revenue. But i will NOT BE SPYED UPON. ever.