— 2008-01-25: Version 1.7.7 (build 8179)
- Fix: remote crash bug in WebUI
- Fix: (potential) remote crash bug with extension protocol (affects all 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8 builds released to date)

Come out of your tinfoil-hat wearing hole and provide proof of your claims. Report bugs if you think bugs are there. Give info to reproduce them. DO NOT stick with archaic versions. If you don’t report the bugs, they will NEVER get fixed.

BT’s client, compared to others, wasn’t as good – I agree. What I disagree with is you basically saying that anyone who has worked for BT Inc is a bad coder – especially when you base it on a client that has evolved over time, and has had a number of different coders and maintainers, some who have and haven’t been directly involved with BT inc.

I don’t use uTorrent much – so I can’t really say whether things are better than worse. It has seemed to do the job regardless. I’m just not convinced that the unstability that you talk about is widespread as you make it to be.

There are a large number of users who stick to 1.6.1 because of the paranoia factor – so it’s difficult to say what percentage of those users stick to those versions because of that.

Anyway, wasn’t 1.6.1 the first BT inc related build? I thought some build between 1.6.0 and 1.6.1 was the last one ludde contributed to.

Looking at the announcements forum on the UT forums, there seem to have been a number of releases and bugfixes which have fixed various problems, including client crashes. Presumably that’s written by the same ludde who’s written this work of art you’re talking about?

And before you criticise those involved on the UT forums – I’m sure you realise that a number of those people are volunteers without being involved with BT inc. What’s their agenda? Or could they actually be genuine with what they’re saying?

PROVE IT.

So far, the only issues I’ve seen with 1.6.1 have been trivial compared to those of later releases. A remote user ‘might’ be able to make it crash, but I have yet to see proof of this. Even if this is true, how critical is it to have someone shut down your client? That’s like ringing someone’s doorbell and running away. There’s also the RSS cookie issue, which, although annoying, is hardly a ’security hole.’ Everything else is just unsubstantiated FUD spread mostly by a development team that doesn’t enjoy being made to look bad.

In other words, in the la la land that is the uTorrent forum, 1.6.1 is rife with horrors. In the real world, though, organizations with less of a self serving agenda embrace 1.6.1 as the secure and ultra stable client that it is.

If you find bugs and want them fixed, REPORT THEM. Don’t knee-jerk downgrade.

If you want to claim that uT actually reports what you’re downloading, PROVE IT. Provide Wireshark logs to back it up.

“Your “Sh*tTorrent Inc” comments are just infantile.”

If the shoe fits…

Even though your ‘no need to re-invent the wheel’ theory does seem plausible as to the reason why BT inc. purchased uT, it doesn’t change the fact that pre-acquisition, BT inc.’s client was pretty much a joke in the filesharing community and post acquisition, uT has been exceedingly problematic/unstable.

I am not alone in this opinion. An increase in market share is no indication of superior coding. It just means that most people don’t know any better. For those members of the filesharing community that are selective of the clients they use, they wouldn’t go near 1.8 with a ten foot pole.

1.6.1, plain and simple, is a work of art. I throw everything I can at it and I just can’t get the damn thing to crash. Ludde had to cope with the exact same complex environment that uT’s developers are dealing with now and yet his releases have been stable.

Ludde did ’save’ us all. Temporarily ;) Pre-uT windows clients were a wasteland. There’s a few glimpses of hope on the horizon (such as Halite), but they are still mostly garbage. Can you imagine running 700 torrents in Az for a year and half? It could never happen!

I wouldn’t go as far as to call him ‘SuperLudde,’ though. His coding/intellect is definitely ’super,’ but his morals may not be so lofty.

Microtorrent FTW!

(see? =] )

But it’s optional. Turning it off doesn’t even load it in to your RAM.

I don’t like the Vuze part either. The second they make it mandatory I will either use an old version or change clients, but since it is open source they can’t really make it mandatory so I’m not worried.

Until that happens, if it ever does, I am currently happy with Azureus but with Vuze turned off. It takes a lot of RAM but it has a lot of features, too.

“Ummm… you are familiar with the history of BT, correct? BT Inc wrote the first BT client. It did okay for a while basically because that was all there was. Because they couldn’t code their way out of a paper bag, though, Ludde came along and pwned them by writing uT. Rather than trying to compete with obviously superior software, they just bought the damn thing… and then proceeded to turn it to sh*t. That’s what they do. Sh*torrent, Inc.”

How did they make it shit? I haven’t used it since I used Windows, but I’m just wondering.

“The Vuze people also made it closed source after they took money from VCs. 2.5 is the last open source version.”

Really? I’ll have to check in to that, but I don’t think you’re right.

“They probably never heard something called LINUX! Heeey! Are you there? LINUUUX!”

Yea, that would be great. I’d like to try it out.

“@55 – Azureus / Vuze is still open source, what you’re saying isn’t true.”

Ok, good :)

“And just because you are having 100% CPU problems, doesn’t mean everyone else is.”

*raises hand* I’m not having that problem.

“The new client limits your download speed to 10x your upload.”

I increased upload speed on a torrent, and did find the download speed increased by x10. Is this what v1.8 does? If so, I am going back to 1.77.

By the same logic, I’m a member of the KKK, since my wife hired a plumber and the company the plumber works for has a guy working for them that is in the Klan. If any evidence 9and I mean actual facts) appeared that utorrent was working with anti-p2p companies, we’d shout it here, loud and proud.

Ain’t utorrent been sold, like, years ago to Bittorrent.com which has been hand in hands with anti-p2p firms?

I’d rather like if you’d advertise for alternatives.

Given that isn’t a particularly difficult thing to come up with manually – I’d have to say that based on this one small example, I wouldn’t really consider your programming skills to be that good. Feel free to point to other examples if you want.

> Ummm… you are familiar with the history of BT, correct?

I don’t need a history lesson thanks. Bram wrote it, he prototyped a usable client in Python because (amongst other things), Python is great for writing things quickly. He was writing this way before the formation of BT Inc – I remember the early versions of the client which used to popup a page to donate money to continue his work.

BitTornado spawned from that to make a lot more things customisable. A number of clients grew from that, using either the original BitTorrent or BitTornado as the backend – so you had clients like TorrentStorm that ran multiple instances of each client per torrent, and plugged into that.

Some clients were written from scratch, like Azureus. Ludde liked Azureus, but wanted something more lightweight, so proceeded to develop uTorrent.

Not all the people that were that at the beginning of the client’s development are still there – obviously Bram initially wrote it, and alus is primarily the one maintaining UT now.

All the later versions of the client were built from the initial Python implementation. It’s quite possible that regardless of the skill levels of any of the developers involved, the underlying core wasn’t suitable for their future plans.

So if they came to the conclusion that maybe it would need rewriting it, buying a stable client codebase to work from doesn’t seem like a bad idea. It doesn’t mean they’re incapable of writing a client as good as UT, it just means that it saves them a *lot* of time writing it from scratch again.

That seems like a better history lesson, rather than your “we were left to fend for ourselves, until SuperLudde came from the skies and saved us all” parable.

So quite frankly – I don’t believe the developers at BT inc are crap. And I don’t believe that UT is a crap client, and there seems to be a large number of users who agree. Your “Sh*tTorrent Inc” comments are just infantile.

“care to point us to some of this software that you’ve written?”

And have some misguided Sh*ttorrent, Inc. fanboy attempt to DDoS my site? No thanks.

“And does it necessarily make sense for BT Inc to write an entire client from scratch, when they could probably spend less money and effort by just buying an existing program and carrying on the work from there?”

Ummm… you are familiar with the history of BT, correct? BT Inc wrote the first BT client. It did okay for a while basically because that was all there was. Because they couldn’t code their way out of a paper bag, though, Ludde came along and pwned them by writing uT. Rather than trying to compete with obviously superior software, they just bought the damn thing… and then proceeded to turn it to sh*t. That’s what they do. Sh*torrent, Inc.

History lesson over ;)