Talk:Comparison of BitTorrent clients/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

OS Cache disabling (in revision 549689183)

This is an important feature, which avoids significant degradation of system performance for large fast downloads and therefore I think that it should have its own column too. Petr Matas (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to me to be a distinctive feature at all, not to speak of a separate column. It's more like task-specific disk I/O optimization which is virtually essential for any good program designed to work with large amounts of data. Program authors think the same: from the 4 client feature lists I checked at random - uTorrent, qBittorrent, Free Download Manager and BitComet, only the last one even mentions this topic. — Vano 23:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Another argument against this is that OS cache disabling isn't the only I/O optimization technique out there. Large read-ahead and write-behind buffers, for instance, are even more common. — Vano 23:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
One would expect, that any good program with its own buffers (covered by the Cache column) disables the OS cache, but many do not. From my experience I can say that it is a very prevalent programming flaw present even in uTorrent (v3.2.3), which you mentioned. That's why I see it so important. Should we mention this flaw (if present) in the Notes or Cache column? — Petr Matas (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's an "important flaw". Large-scale reads and writes effectively bypass the OS cache anyway. And trying to outwit the OS in other cases as well is almost always unwise.
In any case, discussing the impact of the feature on system performance isn't relevant to the matter in question. What is relevant is whether reliable sources consider the feature major enough to be comparing on it. — Vano 21:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that you are wrong – Microsoft itself recommends disabling the OS cache for large transfers. — Petr Matas 06:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

BitLord license

The article claimed that BitLord is violating the GPL. The only ref provided was a link to their own FAQ and a dubious claim that the source isn't available anywhere. As long as you don't have a real source, please refrain from claims like that in the article. 212.149.214.239 (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Zona

Shouldn't Zona (www.zona.ru and reviewed at https://torrentfreak.com/zona-is-a-popcorn-time-beater-and-a-pirates-dream-140425/) be included in this list? I'm not an expert - just ran into Zona today (haven't even downloaded it or used it). Also, what about Popcorn Time??? (I have also never heard of this until today). Thanks in advance to those who know, and please put these in the Comparison page if they belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.50.58 (talk) 08:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

plug ins

there is big difference if or not... plugin is used plugin enable new functionality missing without it....

I offer, someone to add more columns for the functionality. One of them to be... whether third party developers can expand functionality with plugins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.10.229.1 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

utorrent malware addition

@Verdy p: - Regarding these edits: The note in the license column is out of place. There should only be license names there. At the very least footnoted. (Same goes for the ask.com note which was already there). The long paragraph about one client, important as it may be, belongs on that client's page, not above a comparison. As far as addressing it here, there's precedent to remove software which contains malware from the list (per this text:

"In 2007, four BitTorrent clients were discovered to be Trojan horses that attempt to infect Windows with malware.[3][4][5] Those clients—BitRoll, GetTorrent, Torrent101, and TorrentQ—are excluded from the comparison tables below."

so should utorrent be added to that list (and removed from the comparison)? Alternatively, would it be useful to include all four -- in a separate table, maybe -- as containing this sort of thing? --Rhododendrites (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

  • First, the referenced paragraph belongs in the μTorrent article rather than here.
So why the introduction lists others ? µTorrent being major also requires even more attention.
  • Second and foremost, we only reflect what is happening in the world rather that enforce our own conventions on it. The clients listed were obvious rogue software that was never regarded seriously. μTorrent is another story, it's a major client (or at least, it was until recently). We should only write it off completely as malware if the world at large has already done so. Did it? If not, we shall only add a promiment notice to its entry and/or introduction. — Vano 23:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
You should also know that µTorrent site has been compromised as well with extremely malicious malwares. And µTorrent, even if it is major, now has several issues (not just the fact that it displays an ad banner at top of its inteface window, but about the "addons" it installs in stealth mode and that contaminante your browser, even when you don't use µTorrent), The bad thing is the fact that it does not ask for permission, and the user may not even notice that these additional bloarwares are running. µTirrent has already tried with several such addons, but the one that is currently installed also has a bad history.
For me, any software that installs without asking a new software without permission, in order to alter the functionalities of other unrelated softwares (or blocking its functionalities), is a trojan. µTorrent is now a prooven trojan.
Personnaly I've banned now µTorrent, and use qBittorrent instead (which is fully opensource and has almost the same functionalities and similar interface). Note that I use it for downloading large files such as large opensource database dumps and Linux ISO distros or opensourced development projects. I don't need or want to share everything. But for small files, I just share them on traditional web storages, or cloud services, or social networks, or Commons if they aremay be interesting for general public and I absolutely don't care about what will be done with these files I don't want to support myself. Torrents have a limited use for me, and I don't want to be constantly monitored by bloatwares, just like I don't share all my life on social networks. verdy_p (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
You know what? They reverted my adding of malware info into uTorrent saying that the sources are unreliable. That incited me to search for a more reliable one and you know what? I didn't find any mentioning of a silent installation! Both an official forum thread and independent discussions (the latter one cites Softpedia) only mention that it offers to install all the bad stuff! I'm beginning to think the danger was exaggerated. Silent drive-by install is a serious accusation, if it was actually true, someone would have alerted everyone at some security-related site! True, the program's authors balance on the edge but I didn't find any evidence that they crossed it. — Vano 23:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I switched from uTorrent to tixati several years ago when in university studying computer science I learned that the Windows uTorrent binary installed spyware without permission on my system. This was during the same time period when advertisements were first added to the program. It was obvious that the authors were unethical and that the program was in a steep decline. However my main concerns here are that 1) the header section of this article states that uTorrent among other programs will not appear in the comparison tables, yet uTorrent is present in the tables and 2) the vulnerabilities section lists uTorrent as "clean", when in fact the presence of malware (as an "option" or otherwise) is a clear vulnerability. Moreover, users interested in safety are likely to skip directly to the vulnerabilities section to determine the relative safety and security of torrent programs. Therefore it is especially important to list all pertinent concerns including malware/spyware/adware/etc as well as the presence of advertisements in that section. It is a matter of practicality and safety, and I thank you for your consideration. Adallace (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposed from Usage share of BitTorrent clients

Usage share of BitTorrent clients is potentially useful but very outdated and the material could easily be prevented here in a more streamlined fashion. Therefore, I have proposed a merge to this page at both locations. 65.158.81.126 (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

No merge notable and useful information. Valoem talk contrib 03:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing clients

There is at least one client i know of that is missing from the article, namely Halite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.8.63.129 (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of BitTorrent clients. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Mess!!!

There is too much information in this article, so it turns out to be useless to choose between the options. And there is even longly dead clients, like LimeWire. What???--MisterSanderson (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's unclear whether this is an historical comparison of notable BitTorrent clients, or a comparison of currently maintain clients for use by people trying to choose a client for active use. In either case, a number of the clients listed here would need to be removed, either due to lack of notability, or lack of active development. There needs to be consensus on which action to take. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danylstrype (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Blog Torrent was not a client

Blog Torrent was not a BitTorrent client in the usual sense of a program running on a desktop/ laptop/ mobile user device. It was a server-side tool that was intended to allow people to distribute video files in the same way that blog platforms allow people to distribute text, but using BitTorrent instead of HTTP or FTP as the delivery protocol. It was replaced by (maybe rebranded as?) the Broadcast Machine, when Downhill Battle formalized themselves as the Participatory Culture Foundation. Unless someone objects, I'm going to remove it from this list. Danylstrype (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of BitTorrent clients. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of BitLet from the General Application list.

BitLet is now defunct and no longer available and hence should be moved or removed to make the page more useful. Perhaps a separate corner for the Application. 365 (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the 'year' column in the first table?

In some instances it is reflecting the year of first release, in some it is the year of last stable release. What is it supposed to represent, and why isn't it able to be dynamic anyway? 79.75.209.206 (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_BitTorrent_clients/Archive_3&oldid=1136630694"