Popular Linux torrent client Transmission has been forked as "ReTransmission" to "solve a longstanding disagreement between the Transmission maintainers on whether or not to add more maintainers."
https://github.com/transmission/transmission/discussions/9031Open linkView original on lemmy.today
32 replies
Oh gosh, the bickering.
A core feature of any mature FOSS project.
As a maintainer, you can just ignore it most of the time 👌😎
Well at least one aspect is mature
I'm not sure I like your attitude, so I'm starting my own thread down below and everyone else is welcome to join me there.
😆👌
Fucking nerds, man. Why can't we learn to work together!?
Forking this comment because it didn't include a reference to me.
Probably autism for a solid portion of them. Some form of neurodivergence for nearly all of them.
Bonkers that its the default on many distros instead of qbittorrent
it's qbittorrent, not gbittorrent. that's really why.
transmission has been the default on so many gnome-based distributions for a very long time because of its gtk frontend.. it also has a qt frontend, curses cli, daemon, windows qt build, and native mac versions...
qbittorrent also runs on more than just linux, but is qt. only qt. how many qt-only applications find their way into the default package set for gnome or gtk desktops released by debian, ubuntu, mint, fedora, redhat, suse, etc, etc.
Yeah, I much prefer cli front ends over web ones as all my torrent boxes have been headless. I realize with most client server archs I could connect via gui but still I prefer cli.
It does what it used to do 15 years ago and it does it well. The arr-stack tried to make me use qBittorrent. I said no and did it with Transmission anyway.
Qbt likewise has been doing it for 20 years and doing it well 🤷
Works great in my friends arr stack
https://github.com/retransmission/retransmission link to fork
Why does anyone use this over qbit?
It's lightweight, open source, and does exactly what it's supposed to.
I kind of legacyed my way into it. It was the first thing I grabbed after uTorrent went to hell decades ago.
What is the advantage of qbit over it?
Qbittorrent feels a lot closer to what uTorrent used to be, while Transmission has more of a Mac-style simplicity to it.
I2p torrenting is supported by QBitTorrent not transmission. Transmission is simple, clean, lightweight and does the thing. QB is a million knobs dials and levers and comparatively heavier though not offensively so.
My main point of concern is most of my indexes often ban versions of transmission but I never see that for qbit.
I don't often use BitTorrent at all, but Transmission is certainly the first client that comes to my mind, probably mainly because it came preinstalled with the distros I used when I was new to Linux (Debian and Ubuntu in the late 2000s). Not sure what advantages there are either way.
That makes sense, qbit was the first recommended to me too.
Tried both, qBittorrent is much heavier on the CPU just sitting there idling. I do have a large amount of torrents, maybe over 200, and I didn't expect to notice such a difference.
It works great headless on my server. It does what it is supposed to do without any bloat that I would not use anyway.
Headless means no GUI is it? How do you go aout getting used to these programs
For things like this, the system you leave running the client all the time isn’t always the system you actually sit down and use. So it’s common for there to be a webUI, waypiping the GUI, or good old fashioned CLI
Do your mean how I use it? With a remote client and other services use the RPC API. How to get used to it? Being a lifelong nerd?
That is pretty good.
long-standing
They're both correct. This is akin to correcting somebody because they're using British / American English and you're using the other.
It's a direct quote of the guy who forked.
Fork you!