Talk:Comparison of BitTorrent clients

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of BitTorrent clients article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 100 days

Computing: Software List‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

I just spent a painful (and fruitless) 30 minutes attempting to cross reference linux bittorrent clients that had a web interface and also supported DHT. Stumbled across this list via google and thought perhaps it would be helpful. My biggest issue with that, was the various distinct tables, meaning that there was no way to quickly sort by what I needed and break it down from there. Is there any reasoning beyond screen width that the tables are segregated the way they are? If so, perhaps it might make sense to add an all-encompassing table at the end of the list to make it easier to identify a potentially useful client from the rest of the chaff? HawkeVIPER (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tables are broken into 3 separate ones as most peoples PC screens wouldn't allow them to view the tables in a nice manner. I suggest that you do copy paste the tables into something like Excell and use sorting functions over there to filter out the information you need.

mfg, OldDeath - 13:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding: http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/f-software-23/t-abc-yet-another-bittorrent-client-reincarnation-389496

http://www.moopolice.de/

KGet [It is included.]

uTorrent Mac ? [It is included.]

FrostWire [THIS STILL NEEDS INCLUDING]

Miro [It is included.]

Retriever [Needs including.]

leechcraft [Needs including.]

Download managers with bittorrent support: FreeDownloadManager, GetRight 6, NetTransport

Libtorrent-based clients: http://www.rasterbar.com/products/libtorrent/projects.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libtorrent_(Rasterbar)#Applications

Chinese bittorrent clients: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuotu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xunlei

Surfer56 (talk)

Developed for the purpose of tracking its users for mining IP addresses to bring suits against, this company shouldn't be on this list. Furthermore, the documentation regarding this program is only from its website directly. Try and find third party information about this site, go ahead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.47.255 (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...??? There are some other sources, even if they are not that frequent... I'd like to see proof for what you said, before removing a potentially good client from this comparison table...

OldDeath (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS.: I moved this part of the discussion down, as new discussions should be at the bottom of the page by default...

There are two incompatible webseed specifications: [1] (implemented by and developed for BitTornado) and [2] (implemented by and developed for GetRight). Distinction should be made in table. Client which supports BitTornado's webseed will not be able to download if in .torrent file GetRight's webseed source is given. And vice versa.
83.24.151.105☮ —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Would it be possible for the sorting by 'latest stable' coloumn to sort the last release date rather than the release number? This would give much more useful information (i.e. if development is still active). Most projects don't follow a comparable versioning scheme, especially if you look at 'commercial' and FLOSS software in the same table, as they seem to have different motivations in their versioning schemes. In general I've found that once the releases get past v1.0 the release number gives no useful information really. Just an idea. Chaos.squirrel (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea is not bad, however, this would require one with bigger coding skills than most people have to edit the table template, so it's something that is not that easy to achieve.

mfg, OldDeath - 13:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Features II table, there is already a column for SOCKS support, so why adding a second column called Proxy to Features I? I think the Proxy column should be migrated into the SOCKS column.

mfg, OldDeath - 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information about support for the Cache Discovery Protocol. --79.168.10.241 (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]