Talk:rTorrent - Wikipedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

The screen dump[edit]

I suggest the screenshot be replaced with one that doesn't show the rtorrent tool being used for potentially illegal activity. One or more of those downloads it shows is a copyrighted work. This doesn't necessarily mean the act of downloading it is illegal, but a screenshot showing copyright-free downloads in progress avoids the whole political/legal piracy issue surrounding BitTorrent and isn't any less informative for encyclopedic purposes. Just a suggestion. --Ds13 01:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plain censorship; I don't think this is a good idea. What is illegal for you might not be illegal somewhere else, and in any case hiding the whole Copyright social conflict as if it didn't exist not only will not solve it but it'll do harm because it'll give a fabricated image of reality. -- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Censorship" is not possible here and a "fabricated image of reality" is not necessary to present a neutral image, in line with WP's goals. But your point about not biasing the article to the point of "hiding" an issue is good. Every user has different goals in mind with RTorrent, so if we think the screenshot is representative, then so be it. --Ds13 21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a screenshot that shows the user downloading some copylefted content wouldn't hurt, but sure that's a thing and replacing the screenshot just to hide the copyright conflict is an entire different one; I was tempted to do so when I saw that the image that was in the article was too big, but at the end I just gimped out the window frame and indexed the image instead.-- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a screendump that I just took of rTorrent 0.6.0 downloading an ubuntu installation cd: [1] Battra 01:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this talk page before I uploaded a new image containing FOSS torrents, although I did post to the talk page for the image itself. If there is reason to discuss putting the old one back, let’s take a look at the advantages of doing so. My feelings are that we don't need to show content that could be illegal in context. However, I also realize that downloading media may or may not be illegal depending on jurisdiction and any applicable laws. There hasn’t been any recent activity on this talk page, so if anyone feels that replacing the image was not appropriate please let me know and we can discuss it. I will say that I did not replace the old image in an attempt to “hide” the copy infringement issue. I simply feel that replacing the image with content less likely to be viewed as borderline illegal benefits Wikipedia in the long run. Plus it’s a new version in the screenshot (0.6.4). Newer is better, right? ;) Pekster 21:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal experience[edit]

I've got a 100 mbit connection, and yet torrents never leech or seed in more than around 500 kbit/s. Not in any client except rtorrent, which mostly reaches around 1500 kbit/s, three times the speed! It does eat system resources though.

It shouldn't. A RAM usage limit can be set and it shouldn't affect throughput if the HD can keep up... if you mean CPU, if you do some profiling (with, say, oprofile) and determine where the time is spent it'll be very helpful. Btw, I'm not a rtorrent developer or anything, just very curious. -- Roc Vallès^Talk|Hist - 17:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks. That is beyond my knowledge in Unix though. Anyways, I've reached 2500 kbit/s nows, five times the normal speed! I'm sure it can go even higher (can download in around 9000 over FTP/HTTP etc).

I've seen screenshots of rTorrent going at 61.8MB/s, any problems you might be having is due to bad configuration or hardware/network. (I'm not related to the development of the software, neither am I able to help if you are having trouble configuring it, I just saw a screenshot of it running efficiently). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.6.67 (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is known that rtorrent gobbles up a lot of RAM. If you limit it, then you might limit the performance. My personal experience is that rtorrent is pure crap. --213.130.254.217 (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Frequently Updated[edit]

So that only one place needs to be updated for it to show up here, and on the list of BT Clients page. Right now it's not showing up though, even though the template for Latest Stable Release Exists, so don't know if its just a cache thing, or if I did it incorrectly, sorry for any trouble in fixing the LSR template if I did it incorrectly. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 23:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KTorrent? What's the connection?[edit]

It refers to KTorrent, but it doesn't say *why*. So, whoever added the link: why is it there? KTorrent doesn't mention rtorrent (or libtorrent), so... is it just to mention KTorrent, just so there's a mention? Without reason? --jae (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a Linux BitTorrent client written in C++, and it has a very similar featureset. That's probably why. Googling for the 2 names, you see a lot of comparisons. --Gwern (contribs) 02:24 12 January 2010 (GMT)

I agree that it makes no sense. Should be removed. --213.130.254.217 (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need more clarity in the article[edit]

Need to clarify how rtorrent usage differs from other clients, perhaps improve the example usage scenario that clearly explains how its usage differs from other torrent clients so that this article is more usefule to users looking to understand what rtorrent is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.171.80 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on RTorrent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131026232607/http://rakshasa.no/mailman/listinfo to http://rakshasa.no/mailman/listinfo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]