Talk:BT clients - Revision history

Tyciol: Tyciol moved page Talk:BT Clients to Talk:BT clients: client is not a proper noun

2021-01-10T06:45:47Z

Tyciol moved page Talk:BT Clients to Talk:BT clients: client is not a proper noun

← Older revision

Revision as of 08:45, 10 January 2021

2013-10-20T22:10:51Z

Reverted edits by Aadieu (talk) to last revision by Aranjedeath

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 21 October 2013
Line 81:		Line 81:
	(FWIW karagarga accepts it, and they are really strict)		(FWIW karagarga accepts it, and they are really strict)
	-[[User:Minusf\|Minusf]] 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)		-[[User:Minusf\|Minusf]] 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

	~~== uTorrent 3.3.2 blacklisted? Intenional or...? ==~~

	~~Finally updated my uTorrent, and now it says that this client isn't allowed... is that supposed to be that way? If so, any way to roll back the update?~~

2013-10-16T08:28:30Z

uTorrent 3.3.2 blacklisted? Intenional or...?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 16 October 2013
Line 81:		Line 81:
	(FWIW karagarga accepts it, and they are really strict)		(FWIW karagarga accepts it, and they are really strict)
	-[[User:Minusf\|Minusf]] 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)		-[[User:Minusf\|Minusf]] 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

			== uTorrent 3.3.2 blacklisted? Intenional or...? ==

			Finally updated my uTorrent, and now it says that this client isn't allowed... is that supposed to be that way? If so, any way to roll back the update?

2012-07-04T01:18:56Z

Shareza: Panthera has been dead for a very long time.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:18, 4 July 2012
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Why is '''Shareza''' not suggested? I know that there is a false Shareza V4 which is bundled with adware but the real V2 doesn't have that. --[[User:Deimon\|Deimon]] 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)		Why is '''Shareza''' not suggested? I know that there is a false Shareza V4 which is bundled with adware but the real V2 doesn't have that. --[[User:Deimon\|Deimon]] 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

	I would like to notify all people concerned with Shareaza that they're making a new client, It's very much and alpha and crashes alot, but the team is taking shareazaV2's code and re-formulating it from the ground up. It doesn't need to be included yet, but watched at the very least. http://www.pantheraproject.com/
	~~Reference -> http://torrentfreak.com/shareaza-team-fight-back-with-panthera-project-080818/~~
	~~--[[User:Aranjedeath\|Aranjedeath]]~~

	Shareaza is a bad client because the upload is very low ;)		Shareaza is a bad client because the upload is very low ;)
	(i am not 100% sure if this is for V2 too, but i thought so)		(i am not 100% sure if this is for V2 too, but i thought so)


	===New Client Suggestions===		===New Client Suggestions===

2011-01-26T21:46:13Z

btpd

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:46, 26 January 2011
Line 83:		Line 83:
	please consider whitelisting it		please consider whitelisting it
	(FWIW karagarga accepts it, and they are really strict)		(FWIW karagarga accepts it, and they are really strict)
			-[[User:Minusf\|Minusf]] 21:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

2011-01-26T21:45:18Z

btpd: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 26 January 2011
Line 72:		Line 72:
	Will keep in mind.<br>		Will keep in mind.<br>
	[[User:Raznak\|kureshii]] 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)		[[User:Raznak\|kureshii]] 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

			== btpd ==

			i would like to suggest [https://github.com/btpd/btpd/wiki/ btpd] as an accepted client.

			it is a very nice and plain command line only,
			daemon style (running in the background) bt client,
			perfect for seeding large number of torrents serverside.

			please consider whitelisting it
			(FWIW karagarga accepts it, and they are really strict)

2009-08-10T19:33:27Z

Accepted clients

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 10 August 2009
Line 64:		Line 64:
	We're (mods+admins) currently discussing which clients are recommended, accepted and unacceptable. This will probably take quite some time though, especially in the light of Jarudin's upcoming trip to Japan. Don't take it as official word yet, but for the moment uTorrent, Vuze and some libtorrent-based clients are the only clients on the recommended list. The libtorrent clients are kinda tricky since there are so many frontends for them, and we're not going to take the libtorrent library as the only requirement for "recommendation".		We're (mods+admins) currently discussing which clients are recommended, accepted and unacceptable. This will probably take quite some time though, especially in the light of Jarudin's upcoming trip to Japan. Don't take it as official word yet, but for the moment uTorrent, Vuze and some libtorrent-based clients are the only clients on the recommended list. The libtorrent clients are kinda tricky since there are so many frontends for them, and we're not going to take the libtorrent library as the only requirement for "recommendation".

	[[User:Raznak\|~~Raznak~~]] 05:20, ~~9 February~~ 2009 (UTC)		[[User:Raznak\|kureshii]] 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


	==Updating of clients in the whitelist==		==Updating of clients in the whitelist==

2009-08-10T19:32:27Z

Updating of clients in the whitelist

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:32, 10 August 2009
Line 70:		Line 70:
	It would be nice to keep a short history of versions removed due to revisions of the whitelist. That would keep members from repeatedly asking for versions that were on the whitelist but are not anymore. Possibly a single strike one the version would do.		It would be nice to keep a short history of versions removed due to revisions of the whitelist. That would keep members from repeatedly asking for versions that were on the whitelist but are not anymore. Possibly a single strike one the version would do.
	[~enginarc@20090810-1228]		[~enginarc@20090810-1228]
			-----
			Will keep in mind.<br>
			[[User:Raznak\|kureshii]] 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

2009-08-10T14:48:56Z

Updating of clients in the whitelist

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:48, 10 August 2009
Line 69:		Line 69:
	==Updating of clients in the whitelist==		==Updating of clients in the whitelist==
	It would be nice to keep a short history of versions removed due to revisions of the whitelist. That would keep members from repeatedly asking for versions that were on the whitelist but are not anymore. Possibly a single strike one the version would do.		It would be nice to keep a short history of versions removed due to revisions of the whitelist. That would keep members from repeatedly asking for versions that were on the whitelist but are not anymore. Possibly a single strike one the version would do.
			[~enginarc@20090810-1228]

2009-08-10T12:28:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:28, 10 August 2009
Line 65:		Line 65:

	[[User:Raznak\|Raznak]] 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)		[[User:Raznak\|Raznak]] 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


			==Updating of clients in the whitelist==
			It would be nice to keep a short history of versions removed due to revisions of the whitelist. That would keep members from repeatedly asking for versions that were on the whitelist but are not anymore. Possibly a single strike one the version would do.