— 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.