Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

BitTorrent Client Shootout

Filed under
Software

Over the past year or two, I have received a small flood of e-mail from readers asking about BitTorrent. Specifically, they want to know what it is, which clients are best and where to go to find the freshest torrents.

But what the vast majority of readers want to know is how to download files over BitTorrent. That's a question I can answer in a single sentence: Install a client, visit a tracker and click on one of the files ending in .torrent. If you want more than that, I'll refer you to the almighty Wikipedia.

But which client to use? Ah, see, here is the part where everyone gets picky. There are a dozen or so truly robust clients for the PC, and about five or six for Mac and Linux. As is always the case, everyone has a favorite, and each client has a core group of devotees.

In this article, we'll examine all of the major BitTorrent clients, looking at their advantages, disadvantages and some of the coolest features. First, however, I think it might be appropriate to back up a little bit and take a closer look at the technology (and the lingo) behind BitTorrent.

Full Story.

More in Tux Machines

Rust 1.9

  • Announcing Rust 1.9
    The Rust team is happy to announce the latest version of Rust, 1.9. Rust is a systems programming language focused on safety, speed, and concurrency.
  • Rust 1.9 Released
    Rust 1.9 brings controlled unwinding support, support for deprecation warnings, new targets (MIPS Linux Musl C library and i586 Windows MSVC), compile-time improvements, more library stabilization work, and new Cargo features.

Announcing the Open Source License API

Over the last 19 years, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has been the steward of the Open Source Definition (or OSD), establishing a common language when discussing what it means to be an Open Source license, and a list of licenses which are known to be compatible with the OSD. This is taken to its logic next step this year, with the OSI providing a machine readable publication of OSI approved licenses at api.opensource.org. This will allow third parties to become license-aware, and give organizations the ability to clearly determine if a license is, in fact, an Open Source license, from the authoritative source regarding Open Source licenses, the OSI. Read more

Leftovers: Gaming

Win for APIs and FOSS (Android Case)

  • Google beats Oracle at trial: Jury finds Android is “fair use”
    Following a two-week trial, a federal jury concluded Thursday that Google's Android operating system does not infringe Oracle-owned copyrights because its re-implementation of 37 Java APIs is protected by "fair use." The verdict was reached after three days of deliberations. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, listen to your verdict as it will stand recorded," said the court clerk, before polling each of the ten men and women on the jury. There was only one question on the special verdict form, asking if Google's use of the Java APIs was a "fair use" under copyright law. The jury unanimously answered "yes," in Google's favor. The verdict ends the trial, which began earlier this month. If Oracle had won, the same jury would have gone into a "damages phase" to determine how much Google should pay. Because Google won, the trial is over. "I salute you for your extreme hard work in this case," said US District Judge William Alsup, who has overseen the litigation since 2010. "With the thanks of your United States District Court, you are now discharged. I would like to come in the jury room and shake each of your hands individually." Four of the ten jurors declined to comment to reporters gathered in the hallway. The other six went out through a back exit. "We're grateful for the jury's verdict," said Google lead lawyer Robert Van Nest before getting into the elevator with Google's in-house lawyers. "That's it." Oracle attorneys had no comment.
  • Google wins Oracle copyright fight over Android code
    Today, a jury in California's Northern District federal court declared that Google's use of copyright-protected code in Android was fair use, freeing it of any liability. Oracle, which controls the copyright on the code, had been seeking $9 billion for the use of the code. The case centers around an API developed by Java and owned by Oracle, which allows outside programs to easily interact with Java programs. Android uses the same API, and in 2014 a federal appeals court ruled that Oracle has a valid copyright claim on the API code, potentially putting Google on the hook for billions of dollars in damages. (The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.) In the latest round, Google argued that Android's reimplementation of the API constituted fair use, which would allow use of the code without invalidating Oracle's copyright. Ultimately, the jury found that case convincing.