Program: BitTorrent
License: "...open source licenses."
Site: http://www.bittorrent.com/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/bittorrent/
Free, open source file-sharing application effective for distributing very large software and media files.
I'm not understanding why we ported uTorrent and not the FOSS BitTorrent to PA.c. Both are run by BitTorrent Inc, and in my experience, are identical in interface, function, and frequency of updates. I've searched the forums (with my phone's browser--not the best way to conduct research) and I'm not following everyone's affinity for uT over BT.
I figure it is something as simple as BT doesn't handle relative paths as well as uT, but I'd like to hear reasons.
--
Edit: spelling errors
--
Edit: BT is not open source anymore, as I thought. The last activity on the SourceForge page was nearly 6 years ago. BitTorrent, Inc. hasn't released open source code for BT since v5. And to think I nearly bought a BT t-shirt to go along with my Ubuntu shirt.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
The open source BitTorrent project you're thinking of is *long* dead. There is no functional FOSS project called BitTorrent any longer. BT is essentially uT now. uT is the most popular torrent client. If you're currently using BT, you're just using uT and you're not using FOSS.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Well that's a shame. BT ought to update their homepage since I took that quote from bittorrent.com.
What's the point of having two identical clients owned by the same people? Package one with an ask.com toolbar to make money?
--
Edit: unless BT means their DNA protocol is open-source... I don't know. I use PA.c uTorrent Portable. Just always thought it strange that there was an advertised "open-source" client like BT but everyone still used uT. Now that you explained BT isn't open-source anymore, it wouldn't much make a difference in choice.
Limits are for people with no imagination.
I don't see anything referencing open source licenses on the homepage. Nor do I see anything even hinting that the client is open source. There is one link on the site for Open Source and that leads here:
http://www.bittorrent.com/opensource
That's the only 5.3 version of the interface in Python (current version is 6.4) as well as Helix, a C++ tracker which never went anywhere.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
"Free, open source file-sharing application effective for distributing very large software and media files. Documentation, FAQ, search-engine." I copied that from the results snippet from a Google search. That explains that.
Limits are for people with no imagination.
http://www.bittorrent.com/btusers/guides/bittorrent-user-manual/faq-freq...
Formerly Gringoloco
Windows XP Pro sp3 x32
From BitTorrent's Manual:
Limits are for people with no imagination.
That's google using a VERY outdated explanation of the program. It's nowhere on the BitTorrent site. It's Google's issue, so you'd need to take it up with them.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Being a site that hosts applications mainly to be used on flash drives, µTorrent (Real name being "Micro Torrent", hence the micro symbol) was probably chosen to be used here since it's a very small client. It barely passes a MB in size. (1.08 MB, (1,142,016 bytes exactly))
More drive space is always good, right?
It's also the Greek letter "mu"... MuTorrent, but that doesn't really matter.
But I did learn something
Yeah?
What you lead?
If you say they saed portableapps.com can make portable versions of bittorent, we will portabilise it; [Point. And comma] If they say no, that's it. [Point]
Whats your point?
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate