Did You Know There's An OpenSource Alternative Client?

[Detale]

Honestly though, I think this is a bit much. I get it, the big bad companies are out to get us. The truth of it all is simple, if "they" want to get, you they WILL get you. All the security in the world really doesn't help much if you pop up on the radar. We play the odds really. odds are they won't get us. I read somewhere that the odds of getting caught downloading illegal stuff is about half of that when getting struck by lightning. So the odds are in our favor but hey any one of us could get caught.

Sure open source is great, I'm all for it. But for the average user who knows fuck all about code (including myself) how the hell should we know what we are looking at and if it's secure or not? As I said nothing is 100% secure I mean look at that russian kid who broke cell phone encryption in like 15 min. You want to know what is 100% secure.... Don't download illegal content, thats safe

You're missing the point! ---> DON'T STAND OUT IN THE OPEN SO MUCH!

Don't be such sheep running out in the open using everything that everyone typically uses thinking you are safe.

You don't need to know what the heck open-source is and the code, because typically in most open-source projects there are going to be a lot of people who know the code. Now you could argue, well that gets down to who I trust, so what I'll say is don't be ridiculous and I don't mean to be rude, but no one in their right mind is going to put an exploit in open-source software and peddle it.

Paranoid much? Dude I get that this is your own personal view but to me it sounds like you are kind of pushing your overly paranoid position down our throats a bit. You still haven't shown why we should trust the Sourceforge boys more than the utorrent gang.

Sheep you say. Now that's more than just a little insulting. I mean are you some super security guru in your spare time? I find a product, it's good, I use it. Thats it. I am happy with my current BT software and trust in the security of it, that makes me a sheep?? As I said, if "they" want to get you, you will get GOT! You need to lighten up a bit and maybe get outside for a while pal. Good luck with that.

[Polarbear]

One final post about Azureus/Vuze that should answer all questions:

For the "I don't like Vuze" crowd

A mini FAQ for those of you who keep sending the same messages in our forums repeatedly.

Do I have to use the Vuze interface?

NO. It's optional. You can get Azureus to start up with the "classic UI", and none of the Vuze interface code will be loaded at all. Just to repeat ourselves again - YOU DO NOT HAVE TO USE THE VUZE INTERFACE. Read about the UI Switcher

I don't like the Vuze interface!

Then don't use it. Remember, it's optional!

You shouldn't force people to use Vuze

I agree. Which is why we don't, it's optional.

Can't you distribute a version of Azureus without Vuze?

Technically, yes we can. Will we? No. There's no reason to. Like we've said before - you can use Azureus, without any Vuze code loaded at all if you don't want it.
Do you use the LAN peer finder? Inbuilt tracker? The "download basket"? Download bars? Statistics generation?
If you don't, then you can disable it and it doesn't get used. Like the Vuze interface. We wouldn't release different versions of Azureus with these things included or excluded. We're not going to do it with the Vuze interface either.
We've made it so you don't have to use Vuze, since we realize not everyone wants to use it. So given that you aren't forced to use Vuze in any way... why should we create another version with it included or not? That's just more work for us with no benefit.

Yeah yeah yeah, but couldn't you just distribute a version anyway?

Yes we could, but we aren't going to, because then people will think there really is a reason to have two different versions even though we've said that there isn't, which then cause even more confusion. Whereas if people were to just read this FAQ, and understand they don't have to use Vuze at all, then that would be more straight-forward.

So you're not going to do separate versions for commercial reasons?

No - we're not going to release separate versions because there's absolutely no advantage for us or for users. Users can avoid using the Vuze UI if they want to.

What harm would it do to have separate versions to make everyone happy?

If we have to distribute separate versions, then we've have to build separate installs. And then we have two upgrade mechanisms that we have to handle.
And then our work wouldn't end there. There would be two separate code versions. And then people would say "Why does Vuze identify itself as Azureus". And so then we would have to change that code so that identifies itself differently, which may mean actually forking the code. And then people will say "Why do the Azureus devs say that Vuze uses the same core as Azureus if they release it differently and it identifies itself differently"?
So, no. It means more work for us, has no advantage for users, and has no advantage for us. All we would do is cater for the misinformed user, and then it creates even more misunderstanding as well as more work for us in future. Instead of doing all that, we'll just point those users to this FAQ. Especially to the first point made here.
If you can point out a valid reason why there should be separate versions, rather than just getting the user to change their interface (and living happily ever after), then maybe we'll do it (we'll certainly discuss it). We've yet to hear one.

Can't you just put all the Vuze UI code into a separate file?

Technically, yes. However, that means that whenever we want to send out updates, you have the potential for breaking the interface. The Vuze UI needs to be kept in sync with the Azureus core code itself - and if they get out of sync, you'll end up with a broken interface (which you might not be able to resolve without installing). That's the same reason why we don't (and wouldn't) distribute the classic user interface separately.

This goes against the FOSS and Sourceforge philosophy!

No it doesn't. Sourceforge is meant for open source projects - which Azureus is (and always has been). Same with the Vuze code.
The 'F' in FOSS stands for "Free". Which, again, Azureus is - you're free to modify it. It's also "free as in beer", so you don't have to pay for it.

blah blah corporate blah

Whatever. If there's some supposed ethical or political reason why you don't want to use Vuze, fine - don't. You're not forced to.

You just don't understand the P2P community and you don't listen to users

We understand that a lot of you won't want to use something like Vuze. Hence, we're not forcing you to use it, nor are we dropping support for the Azureus 2 interface.
If we really wanted to force the Vuze interface on everyone, then we could have done. Removed the original interface or refused to continue development on it. We've done neither.

Vuze developers should leave Azureus alone!

The people working on Vuze are the same people working on Azureus. We've got no interest in removing all the work that we had put in for the classic UI and main Azureus core (which we've worked on for several years in our own free time without being paid for it).
So now some of those developers (who do have families to look after, thanks) get paid for their work, while being able to spend more time working on Azureus (as well as Vuze). Is that a bad thing?
Oh, and some of us still volunteer our time to Azureus for free.

Doesn't matter, I've got a modified version which doesn't include the Vuze code!

Which would work exactly the same as if you used if you had used our normal version. Oh well.
The reason why it is relatively straight forward to take out the Vuze code is because we deliberately coded that way - the existing core doesn't have any dependencies on the Vuze UI at all. You don't even have to modify the code. We've even pointed out how you can do it if you really want. But it isn't something we are going to do, for various reasons explained above.
Oh, and I do hope your modified version is running the source code you think it is, rather than including some malicious code...

Doesn't including the Vuze UI even if I don't want it make Azureus more bloated?

Does it use up more CPU? No. Does it use up more memory? No.
The only difference there is that the JAR file containing all the class files is bigger - probably in the region of 3 or 4 MB (at most).

Bloat bloat bloat bloat...

We've heard the argument that all these changes make things more bloated. To quote this forum post:
I've noticed for a long time that there are always some users who love to scream until their vocal cords bleed about "bloat". Typically, they define "bloat" as "Features I don't use". These same users are always in forums requesting tweaks and new features to their pet software. Their sense of entitlement is greatly stroked when such tweaks and features are added.
But when features are added that they DIDN'T ask for, well that's "bloat". The reasons for the changes don't matter. The other users don't matter. The overall health of the project doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter if the screamers can simply ignore the new features and use the software the way they always have, unimpeded. There is no appeasement other than a total acquiescence to the demands of the screamers. "REMOVE IT!" "MAKE A SPECIAL BUILD FOR ME!" "STOP SELLING OUT TO THE MAN!" "LISTEN TO YOUR USERS! (i.e. 'me').
The point that we can't make enough... if you don't like the new interface or the new features - you don't have to use it. Just because you may not choose to use something, it doesn't mean that other users won't. And if new features don't get in your way, then how does it really cause a problem?

[GCI]

Hmm, I feel kind of sorry for Vuze/Azures developers. This kind of reminds how only European countries complain about Microsoft including Internet Explorer. But whatever.

[DasFox]

You're missing the point! ---> DON'T STAND OUT IN THE OPEN SO MUCH!

Don't be such sheep running out in the open using everything that everyone typically uses thinking you are safe.

You don't need to know what the heck open-source is and the code, because typically in most open-source projects there are going to be a lot of people who know the code. Now you could argue, well that gets down to who I trust, so what I'll say is don't be ridiculous and I don't mean to be rude, but no one in their right mind is going to put an exploit in open-source software and peddle it.

Paranoid much? Dude I get that this is your own personal view but to me it sounds like you are kind of pushing your overly paranoid position down our throats a bit. You still haven't shown why we should trust the Sourceforge boys more than the utorrent gang.

Sheep you say. Now that's more than just a little insulting. I mean are you some super security guru in your spare time? I find a product, it's good, I use it. Thats it. I am happy with my current BT software and trust in the security of it, that makes me a sheep?? As I said, if "they" want to get you, you will get GOT! You need to lighten up a bit and maybe get outside for a while pal. Good luck with that.

Most people in the computer world are just sheep following the crowd and for most things too, so don't get bent out of shape, I'm perfectly fine, you're the one taking things the wrong way.

Q.
Perfect example what MP3 Player do most people use?

A. iPod

Q.
What bittorrent client do most people use?

A. uTorrent

The POINT is most people don't know any better and just follow the crowd and most people all typically use the same things...

No one is paranoid about anything, what I'm stating here are facts.

None of this has anything to do with my personal ideas, it's simply a fact that with proprietary software you do not know what is going on with the software, were as with open-source you do, that's a FACT and that's all there is to it, it's as simple as that and that is no one's opinion.

Me lighten up, LOL, why don't you lighten up, you're the one taking this personal not me.

Trusting in the security doesn't make you a sheep, using the same things that pretty much everyone else does because you don't that there is something better makes you one, so don't be insulted, be educated!

Well, Vuze is open source. And the best, most complete and with the most features and plugins bittorrent client by a mile.
It fucking rocks. Is it noob friendly? I suppose not. All the possible tweaking and infinite options may scare some people away.
Not trying to look leet here, but Vuze is the client of choice for seasoned torrenters. Once you try it, you're not going back.

Takes a toll on the system? Bullshit. It takes up around 100-120mb RAM and nearly the same processing power as any other client around.

It is simultaneously the best existing client for Windows, Linux and Mac OS.

Just my 2 cents, I've used nearly all mainstream bt clients, and I can't live without Vuze.

I didn't list Vuze because it is not just a P2P client, it's an all in one media application.

A little side note here is that Vuze is not the client of choice it happens to be uTorrent.

Also for Polarbear:

Anyhow Vuze is a melded all in one app now, this post was made strictly for Bittorrent ONLY clients and Vuze is not that, regardless of being able to use the classic or not, you still have to install everything which doesn't qualify as a only bittorrent client and again that was what this post is about.

Enough about Vuze, let's move on now THANKS!

Hmm, I feel kind of sorry for Vuze/Azures developers. This kind of reminds how only European countries complain about Microsoft including Internet Explorer. But whatever.

It's called a MONOPOLY and some countries and people don't like it.

[Asterix]

interesting

[mysoogals]

i just sent request for torrent streaming for qBittorrent, i hope they add such support so i can leave utorrent forever.

[anon]

qBt? If you use private trackers, I don't think they're going to like its built-in client spoofing.

[DasFox]

qBt? If you use private trackers, I don't think they're going to like its built-in client spoofing.

According to the developer it's a White Listing option, not spoofing, saying some clients are white listed, some are black listed...

The option is being removed:

http://qbforums.shiki.hu/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30

I don't see any reason why a decent client shouldn't be allowed on a tracker.

I used this on Demonoid without any problems.

[anon]

According to the developer it's a White Listing option, not spoofing, saying some clients are white listed, some are black listed...

This is from Wikipedia:

µTorrent spoofing to bypass private trackers white-listing

I never tried the client myself, I just know it can do that because a friend who uses Linux installed it and told me. Pretending to be another client is already spoofing anyway, despite whatever excuse the author may give

I used this on Demonoid without any problems...

But then again, Demonoid can't really be considered a private tracker.

[DasFox]

This is from Wikipedia:

µTorrent spoofing to bypass private trackers white-listing

I never tried the client myself, I just know it can do that because a friend who uses Linux installed it and told me. Pretending to be another client is already spoofing anyway, despite whatever excuse the author may give

I used this on Demonoid without any problems...

But then again, Demonoid can't really be considered a private tracker.

I said the option is being removed.

http://qbforums.shiki.hu/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=30#p141