It seems they still can't be bothered to implement a proper "stop" button, despite many requests over the years. When the devs refuse to listen to their users, that's software I won't use.
The fact that users do not see the behavior as the same is the problem. When the users are telling you how they use your software and you respond by saying "that's bizarre, don't do that", then there's a serious disconnect. Developers should be responsive to user feedback, not dictate how their software should be used.
I think the serious disconnect is in user expectations. Developers of paid produces should be responsive to user feedback. Developers of open source software are free (legally, ethically and morally) to care or not about user feedback exactly as much as they wish.
Users of open source software are free to fork the software if the original developer isn't responsive to their particular needs. They're not entitled to demand that the original developers respond to their feedback. They're even less entitled to complain when the develop does respond with a specific reason why they won't act on their feedback.
I disagree. It's one thing to not have the time or bandwidth to change or add a feature. Certainly free users aren't entitled to a developers time. It's another thing to disagree with a style of usage and refuse to accommodate users out of principle. The software is marketed as an open source replacement for utorrent. If he wanted to treat it as his little fiefdom, he shouldn't position it as a replacement for utorrent. If I had any expectation that a pull request for this feature would be accepted, I would fix it myself. But his demeanor suggests otherwise. That's not the way to approach software that positions itself as a community project.
Thanks. How's the Windows client? I mostly daily drive Windows whenever I'm not programming. I do intend on getting a separate Linux machine for NAS+torrent+Plex MS at some point, and it does seem promising
Deluge for a server/client model with optional web interface, if you for example want to command your Raspberry Pi to add som torrents. But for a more traditional one I prefer qBittorrent after Ludde abandoned uTorrent.
Been a fan of Transmission on macOS for many years. I just wish I could install Transmission on a Linux box and still keep using the fantastic Cocoa interface it has on macOS.
You mean https://github.com/transmission-remote-gui/transgui or another gui? You should be able to connect remotely, that is pretty much the entire idea behind transmission. A torrent daemon with various UIs that use the API.
No idea what that is and any searches for those terms yield transgui. In any case the only way the transmission daemon can be controlled is through an API, which by definition works remotely.
Was using that for a very long time as it's the last version without ads. Unfortunately there were multiple vulnerabilities disclosed in 2018 and some private trackers started blacklisting it (workarounds for the vulns were discussed but not sure if any are confirmed as working).
Better yet, which torrent client can consistently utilise 1 Gbps fibre Internet links?
uTorrent seems to have some efficiency problems, and in my experience it can't even do 1 Gbps with a cross-over cable between two peers, let alone across the Internet...
I believe it uses libtorrent under the hood, so this might be integrated soon.