Whoever designed that seems like they have something against transmission lol.
For me personally: it gets the job done, is allowed by most private trackers, fast and responsive, has a functional webui, and a very vast selection of third party apps (in addition to the cross platform first-party offering)
It's simplicity is kind of its selling point. Only real criticism I have is that it's unfortunate some of the supported features aren't accessible in the first party apps, and especially from the lightweight web interface
Yeah, seems weird that simple "it downloads torrents" client gets a D. It gets the job done, is easy to figure out, and doesnt fuck about with features I would never touch. Maybe thats not enough for a power user but for me its exactly what I want.
(but then why is Tixati in B, seems to have mostly downsides?)
I guess I just don't really know what feature-rich means in this context but being proprietary, not fully cross platform, and banned on most private trackers seems like huge downsides for power users compared to customization, built in search, and integrated chat.
I get this chart probably not made for people like me in mind though.
To be able to set download location, not download into folders, change location based on category, stop seeding after ratio or time, watch a folder for torrent files, delete said files after importing them, minimize to tray.
Not sure what transmission can and cannot do, but those are some examples of features in this context. Others may have a different opinion.
I personally use tixati, primarily because whatever special sauce they cooked it with let's it run on the trashheap of a computer I use for torrenting when nothing else I've tried does. I'm not in any private trackers, nor do I really have a need to be, and like, not being usable on Mac is entirely irrelevant to everyone not using Mac. I personally don't care if it's proprietary, but that's just down to individual preference.
I'm not really sure what feature rich means since I don't have a comparison point, but there's a lot of menus with options in them, and I figure they all do stuff someone more dedicated than myself may care about lol.
They say "barely lacks any features" which I think they mean it's full featured. I feel like Transmission and rTorrent are good clients for their niche though.
Yeah, I've used qbittorrent, deluge, utorrent, and a number of other clients over the years. I greatly prefer transmission. I don't need my torrent client to do anything but download and seed.
Whoever designed that seems like they have something against transmission lol.
For me personally: it gets the job done, is allowed by most private trackers, fast and responsive, has a functional webui, and a very vast selection of third party apps (in addition to the cross platform first-party offering)
It's simplicity is kind of its selling point. Only real criticism I have is that it's unfortunate some of the supported features aren't accessible in the first party apps, and especially from the lightweight web interface
Yeah, seems weird that simple "it downloads torrents" client gets a D. It gets the job done, is easy to figure out, and doesnt fuck about with features I would never touch. Maybe thats not enough for a power user but for me its exactly what I want.
(but then why is Tixati in B, seems to have mostly downsides?)
It's gone the job done for me, for over 16 years now. It was the only real option for Mac computers back in University. I still use it to this day.
You need to read it again more carefully. Lightweight, highly customisable and feature-rich is why it is that high.
I guess I just don't really know what feature-rich means in this context but being proprietary, not fully cross platform, and banned on most private trackers seems like huge downsides for power users compared to customization, built in search, and integrated chat.
I get this chart probably not made for people like me in mind though.
To be able to set download location, not download into folders, change location based on category, stop seeding after ratio or time, watch a folder for torrent files, delete said files after importing them, minimize to tray.
Not sure what transmission can and cannot do, but those are some examples of features in this context. Others may have a different opinion.
I personally use tixati, primarily because whatever special sauce they cooked it with let's it run on the trashheap of a computer I use for torrenting when nothing else I've tried does. I'm not in any private trackers, nor do I really have a need to be, and like, not being usable on Mac is entirely irrelevant to everyone not using Mac. I personally don't care if it's proprietary, but that's just down to individual preference.
I'm not really sure what feature rich means since I don't have a comparison point, but there's a lot of menus with options in them, and I figure they all do stuff someone more dedicated than myself may care about lol.
It's called coding in VS C++ and using native Windows controls, a dying art form unfortunately. The price is losing cross-platform compatibility.
On my Intel mac, Tixati ran perfectly in Wine. I say 'ran' as I haven't used it in a few years.
They say "barely lacks any features" which I think they mean it's full featured. I feel like Transmission and rTorrent are good clients for their niche though.
Yeah, I've used qbittorrent, deluge, utorrent, and a number of other clients over the years. I greatly prefer transmission. I don't need my torrent client to do anything but download and seed.
I bet this person hates GIMP too.
Came here to defend transmission. Glad to see so many compatriots.
And Qbit also has network binding, which is the single most important feature for me as a VPN user.
It made by /g/, what could you asked for, haha
I use transmission because I can install it from Ubuntu repos and it runs from the command line in Ubuntu server.
I dropped Transmission because I found it had severe performance problems with very large torrents. qBittorrent has been great.
Never had an issue with anything
Neither did I until I tried running torrents > 100GB.
There was some bug in the way it was using Java's non-blocking IO and buffer classes that caused resource starvation with very large torrents.