Talk:BT clients: Difference between revisions
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
Sounds interesting, I'm sure some more advanced people than the regular user would be interesting in that. If you want all you need to do is add it within a new page and then link from here to there. --[[User:Deimon|Deimon]] 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC) | Sounds interesting, I'm sure some more advanced people than the regular user would be interesting in that. If you want all you need to do is add it within a new page and then link from here to there. --[[User:Deimon|Deimon]] 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
= Deluge as a recommended client instead of acceptable? = | == Deluge as a recommended client instead of acceptable? == | ||
What do you guys think about this? I find it to work amazingly, pretty much like uTorrent (I use it with Ubuntu so I don't know how good it is on Windows). It's lighter than craploaded Azureus, and pretty much as powerful and light as uTorrent. Why not put it there? --[[User:Koolabsol|Calvin]] 02:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | What do you guys think about this? I find it to work amazingly, pretty much like uTorrent (I use it with Ubuntu so I don't know how good it is on Windows). It's lighter than craploaded Azureus, and pretty much as powerful and light as uTorrent. Why not put it there? --[[User:Koolabsol|Calvin]] 02:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:37, 8 October 2008
What more?
What more does the page need? Let's help out and do a list. --Deimon 17:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Descriptions on all clients
Page Arrangement
Could use more descriptive editing and formatting. --Tsikura 08:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Still needs a lot of information. I like how its organized now. i wish i could say the same about the Windows playback page, but thats under hot debate right now. --MarchHare 08:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to order it from Good -> Bad instead of Bad/Good/Acceptable as it's now? And maybe undercategories within each section by OS...? --Deimon 11:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed it, looks better now. --Deimon 12:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Moved Vuze (Azureus) from Acceptable to Good, since it's one of the two only recommended clients. Also corrected it's title and added a short desc. about it's community part. --Deimon 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Bitspirit was very similar to Bitcomet. There doesn't seem to be much discussion about it, so I won't be moving it to "Bad". Kanzar 10:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Someone moved BitSpirit back... Anyway, it's not well documentation on it so there's no real reason to move it to "Bad" unless we hear complains from the users. --Deimon 05:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't the one to move it there in the first place... <_< Ah well. Kanzar 01:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC):
Just wondering... why isn't Transmission listed under "good"? It's based on on libTorrent, just like rTorrent (which is currently under "Good") --Iindigo 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Clients features more than just what the lib it's based on features. I don't know who moved rTorrent to recommended but only Vuze and uTorrent is recommended by the staff of BoxTorrents, if my memory serves me. This may be a wiki but I don't like people making decisions based on only their own experiences, which involves a bigger part of the community. Can someone who actually have used these applications (Transmission and rTorrent) write the pro's and con's about them, so we can decide which to put under recommended. I don't like the fact with rTorrent that it's terminal based as I think all recommended must at least have a GUI for easier control of the applications, since not everyone on Linux use terminal often. --Deimon 05:55, 28 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. --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/ --Aranjedeath
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)
New Client Suggestions
There's a new client called Halite that looks to be 'the next uTorrent'. Also worth keeping an eye on. Kanzar 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Read about it in TorrentFreak a while back... Tested it but it's not as small as they said (RAM usage, it's not less than uTorrent, which they state), and the scan for how much percent completed you have of one torrent takes a long time. Sorry, forgot to add my byline :P. --Deimon 23:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Web Frontend Section?
I was thinking about chanting up a section centered around web interfaces for command-line torrent clients, and general advice for dedicated torrent servers. Buuut, I'm thinking maybe that's way outside the scope of this document. Would anybody be interested in such a thing? Perhaps as a seperate page altogether? -iddqd
Sounds interesting, I'm sure some more advanced people than the regular user would be interesting in that. If you want all you need to do is add it within a new page and then link from here to there. --Deimon 02:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Deluge as a recommended client instead of acceptable?
What do you guys think about this? I find it to work amazingly, pretty much like uTorrent (I use it with Ubuntu so I don't know how good it is on Windows). It's lighter than craploaded Azureus, and pretty much as powerful and light as uTorrent. Why not put it there? --Calvin 02:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)