BitTorrent update - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on BitTorrent update - Ubuntu ; I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop. Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: BitTorrent update

  1. BitTorrent update

    I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.

    Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    around 1kB/s normally!).

    Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed "properly"?
    Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will be the same
    situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.

  2. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    > told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    > removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >
    > Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    > around 1kB/s normally!).
    >
    > Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed "properly"?
    > Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will be the same
    > situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.


    I quite like ktorrent. It's a KDE app, so will need some other
    dependencies to be installed with it, but I have superb speed with it
    here.

    Could be worth you looking at it.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  3. Re: BitTorrent update

    Moog wrote:
    > Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >> I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    >> told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    >> removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >>
    >> Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    >> around 1kB/s normally!).
    >>
    >> Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed "properly"?
    >> Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will be the same
    >> situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.

    >
    > I quite like ktorrent. It's a KDE app, so will need some other
    > dependencies to be installed with it, but I have superb speed with it
    > here.
    >
    > Could be worth you looking at it.
    >



    Hi Moog,

    I'd JUST installed Transmission 1.06 (5136) before your post arrived,and
    it's using 100% of my down speed (and up speed) :-)

    I have installed ktorrent too but I think I'll stick with Transmission
    for now. If it ain't broke... :-D

  4. Re: BitTorrent update

    On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:25 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:

    > Moog wrote:
    >> Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>> I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    >>> told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    >>> removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >>>
    >>> Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    >>> around 1kB/s normally!).
    >>>
    >>> Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed "properly"?
    >>> Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will be the same
    >>> situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.

    >>
    >> I quite like ktorrent. It's a KDE app, so will need some other
    >> dependencies to be installed with it, but I have superb speed with it
    >> here.
    >>
    >> Could be worth you looking at it.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Hi Moog,
    >
    > I'd JUST installed Transmission 1.06 (5136) before your post arrived,and
    > it's using 100% of my down speed (and up speed) :-)
    >
    > I have installed ktorrent too but I think I'll stick with Transmission for
    > now. If it ain't broke... :-D


    I've tried both Trans and Ktorr. I prefer KTorrent, it has some nice
    features like being able to configure itself with a UPnP router for port
    forwarding. I don't recall seeing that in Trans.



  5. Re: BitTorrent update

    Meat Plow wrote:
    >
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Hi Moog,
    >>
    >> I'd JUST installed Transmission 1.06 (5136) before your post arrived,and
    >> it's using 100% of my down speed (and up speed) :-)
    >>
    >> I have installed ktorrent too but I think I'll stick with Transmission for
    >> now. If it ain't broke... :-D

    >
    > I've tried both Trans and Ktorr. I prefer KTorrent, it has some nice
    > features like being able to configure itself with a UPnP router for port
    > forwarding. I don't recall seeing that in Trans.
    >
    >



    The options in Transmission claims to do so, maybe it's new in this version?
    The speed of both up and down would suggest it's working with UPnP fine.

  6. Re: BitTorrent update

    Meat Plow wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:25 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Moog wrote:
    >>
    >>> Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>
    >>>> I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    >>>> told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    >>>> removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >>>>
    >>>> Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    >>>> around 1kB/s normally!).
    >>>>
    >>>> Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed "properly"?
    >>>> Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will be the same
    >>>> situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.
    >>>>
    >>> I quite like ktorrent. It's a KDE app, so will need some other
    >>> dependencies to be installed with it, but I have superb speed with it
    >>> here.
    >>>
    >>> Could be worth you looking at it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >> Hi Moog,
    >>
    >> I'd JUST installed Transmission 1.06 (5136) before your post arrived,and
    >> it's using 100% of my down speed (and up speed) :-)
    >>
    >> I have installed ktorrent too but I think I'll stick with Transmission for
    >> now. If it ain't broke... :-D
    >>

    >
    > I've tried both Trans and Ktorr. I prefer KTorrent, it has some nice
    > features like being able to configure itself with a UPnP router for port
    > forwarding. I don't recall seeing that in Trans.



    How do you torrent enthusiasts really know for sure that the segmented
    parts of downloaded programs are not infected with some undesirable
    virus, Trojan, etc.?

    I can just imagine some giggling, pimple-faced teen providing such
    hackware from his torrent "server."

    At least when you download from a known FTP (or HTTP) site, you are
    somewhat assured the provider is well-known and unlikely to get their
    kicks by providing corrupted software.

    Isn't using a torrent kinda like buying your women off the street?


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  7. Re: BitTorrent update

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > Meat Plow wrote:
    >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:25 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Moog wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    >>>>> told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    >>>>> removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    >>>>> around 1kB/s normally!).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed "properly"?
    >>>>> Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will be the same
    >>>>> situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I quite like ktorrent. It's a KDE app, so will need some other
    >>>> dependencies to be installed with it, but I have superb speed with it
    >>>> here.
    >>>>
    >>>> Could be worth you looking at it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Hi Moog,
    >>>
    >>> I'd JUST installed Transmission 1.06 (5136) before your post arrived,and
    >>> it's using 100% of my down speed (and up speed) :-)
    >>>
    >>> I have installed ktorrent too but I think I'll stick with
    >>> Transmission for
    >>> now. If it ain't broke... :-D
    >>>

    >>
    >> I've tried both Trans and Ktorr. I prefer KTorrent, it has some nice
    >> features like being able to configure itself with a UPnP router for port
    >> forwarding. I don't recall seeing that in Trans.

    >
    >
    > How do you torrent enthusiasts really know for sure that the segmented
    > parts of downloaded programs are not infected with some undesirable
    > virus, Trojan, etc.?
    >
    > I can just imagine some giggling, pimple-faced teen providing such
    > hackware from his torrent "server."
    >
    > At least when you download from a known FTP (or HTTP) site, you are
    > somewhat assured the provider is well-known and unlikely to get their
    > kicks by providing corrupted software.
    >
    > Isn't using a torrent kinda like buying your women off the street?
    >
    >


    You clearly don't know how torrents work.
    If you edit a section, it's CRC fails and it's dumped. So what's the point?

  8. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker wrote:


    >> How do you torrent enthusiasts really know for sure that the
    >> segmented parts of downloaded programs are not infected with some
    >> undesirable virus, Trojan, etc.?
    >>
    >> I can just imagine some giggling, pimple-faced teen providing such
    >> hackware from his torrent "server."
    >>
    >> At least when you download from a known FTP (or HTTP) site, you are
    >> somewhat assured the provider is well-known and unlikely to get their
    >> kicks by providing corrupted software.
    >>
    >> Isn't using a torrent kinda like buying your women off the street?
    >>
    >>

    >
    > You clearly don't know how torrents work.
    > If you edit a section, it's CRC fails and it's dumped. So what's the
    > point?



    You must have missed the point.

    The point was, this was a valid question on security.

    You correctly assume I don't know how torrents work, but you perhaps
    didn't consider I was looking for knowledge -- an answer.

    Let's try again....

    So who creates and distributes CRCs? Can this CRC also be hacked by a
    person looking to cause trouble?

    Or is the file's CRC maintained on some "respectable" site, and then the
    torrent software simply fetches the various parts from wherever,
    comparing parts with CRCs of each part, and when there is a mismatch,
    going after the same part elsewhere?

    What about security considerations when allowing unknown people to
    access your PC for torrent file parts.

    Finally, do you believe a torrent download is faster than a FTP and/or
    HTTP download?


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  9. Re: BitTorrent update

    John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >
    > You must have missed the point.
    >
    > The point was, this was a valid question on security.


    I see, fair enough.

    >
    > You correctly assume I don't know how torrents work, but you perhaps
    > didn't consider I was looking for knowledge -- an answer.
    >
    > Let's try again....
    >
    > So who creates and distributes CRCs? Can this CRC also be hacked by a
    > person looking to cause trouble?


    CRC, Hash tables, or whatever you call them, are created from the file
    content itself. All files have CRCs, this is how the OS knows the file
    is not corrupt, or not just plain nonsense.

    >
    > Or is the file's CRC maintained on some "respectable" site, and then the
    > torrent software simply fetches the various parts from wherever,
    > comparing parts with CRCs of each part, and when there is a mismatch,
    > going after the same part elsewhere?


    The original "tracker" tells the torrent client everything it needs to
    know about the particular torrent. Every node in the network then
    maintains integrity.
    Those parts of the torrent that fail the test, are dropped. Similarly,
    those nodes on the network that fail are blocked and dropped. Only good
    copies of files are ever transferred, making for multiple perfect copies
    of the original source file.

    >
    > What about security considerations when allowing unknown people to
    > access your PC for torrent file parts.


    So long as the client software is not written by a blind man, people can
    only access the files relevant to the torrent. Some clients take this
    further and won't even let you access files if you're client is not set
    to "seed", or share what it already has, and most clients report you for
    not doing so (to other clients that are listening).

    Any badly written software running on a network can be exploited to
    allow full access to files, but I've never heard this happening on a
    torrent network.
    P2P clients like Kazaa, however, are much more vulnerable because people
    who don't know what they're doing have a tendency of sharing their whole
    hard drive, or important documents.

    Torrent transfers can also be encrypted, to stop snooping.

    >
    > Finally, do you believe a torrent download is faster than a FTP and/or
    > HTTP download?
    >
    >


    That all depends on the bandwidth available via the particular HTTP, FTP
    or Torrent server(s). Downloading from high-bandwidth sites such as
    Microsoft, for example, will always max out my connection, but
    downloading patches for games from all those horrible ad-supported
    "please pay to download" sites will not, and a torrent would be more
    successful in fully utilising available bandwidth.
    So it's all relative to the particular download.


    But torrents are distributed - they take the strain off of one server
    and makes everyone a server. If one server goes down, it's no big loss,
    there's always another. This makes files always available.

    For example, if the Ubuntu site went down, there'll always be somewhere
    you can get a .torrent file from, and therefore still get a distro
    anyway (ignoring all the mirror servers).

    When in doubt, ask Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.torrent

  10. Re: BitTorrent update

    On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:05:07 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:

    > Meat Plow wrote:
    >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:25 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> Moog wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    >>>>> told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    >>>>> removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    >>>>> around 1kB/s normally!).
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed
    >>>>> "properly"? Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will
    >>>>> be the same situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I quite like ktorrent. It's a KDE app, so will need some other
    >>>> dependencies to be installed with it, but I have superb speed with it
    >>>> here.
    >>>>
    >>>> Could be worth you looking at it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Hi Moog,
    >>>
    >>> I'd JUST installed Transmission 1.06 (5136) before your post
    >>> arrived,and it's using 100% of my down speed (and up speed) :-)
    >>>
    >>> I have installed ktorrent too but I think I'll stick with Transmission
    >>> for now. If it ain't broke... :-D
    >>>
    >>>

    >> I've tried both Trans and Ktorr. I prefer KTorrent, it has some nice
    >> features like being able to configure itself with a UPnP router for port
    >> forwarding. I don't recall seeing that in Trans.

    >
    >
    > How do you torrent enthusiasts really know for sure that the segmented
    > parts of downloaded programs are not infected with some undesirable virus,
    > Trojan, etc.?
    >
    > I can just imagine some giggling, pimple-faced teen providing such
    > hackware from his torrent "server."
    >
    > At least when you download from a known FTP (or HTTP) site, you are
    > somewhat assured the provider is well-known and unlikely to get their
    > kicks by providing corrupted software.
    >
    > Isn't using a torrent kinda like buying your women off the street?


    I belong to a private tracker that only allows certain qualified uploaders.
    There are some 81 thousand registered users. They run a very tight ship
    and you can only be invited by a reputable 'power user'. There are no
    leach only users, you are required to seed what you download and maintain
    a 1:1 ratio. The use of DHT is disabled to keep everything private.
    And if you're going to remain idle for more than 3 days you have to 'park'
    your account or it will be deleted.

    I like torrents because the swarms share bandwidth responsibilities. I let
    what I've download seed 24/7. The last file I downloaded was 710 MB.
    My ratio on just that file is 6.68:1 having seeded it for over 2 weeks
    after the download. I can see now that the leechers have pretty much died
    off but I'll continue to let it seed so I don't appear idle.

    When you use public torrents you take your chances. Have good defenses if
    you use Windoze or just use linux.


  11. Re: BitTorrent update

    Meat Plow wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:05:07 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >
    >> Meat Plow wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:25 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Moog wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    >>>>>> told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    >>>>>> removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    >>>>>> around 1kB/s normally!).
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed
    >>>>>> "properly"? Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will
    >>>>>> be the same situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> I quite like ktorrent. It's a KDE app, so will need some other
    >>>>> dependencies to be installed with it, but I have superb speed with it
    >>>>> here.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Could be worth you looking at it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Hi Moog,
    >>>>
    >>>> I'd JUST installed Transmission 1.06 (5136) before your post
    >>>> arrived,and it's using 100% of my down speed (and up speed) :-)
    >>>>
    >>>> I have installed ktorrent too but I think I'll stick with Transmission
    >>>> for now. If it ain't broke... :-D
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> I've tried both Trans and Ktorr. I prefer KTorrent, it has some nice
    >>> features like being able to configure itself with a UPnP router for port
    >>> forwarding. I don't recall seeing that in Trans.

    >>
    >> How do you torrent enthusiasts really know for sure that the segmented
    >> parts of downloaded programs are not infected with some undesirable virus,
    >> Trojan, etc.?
    >>
    >> I can just imagine some giggling, pimple-faced teen providing such
    >> hackware from his torrent "server."
    >>
    >> At least when you download from a known FTP (or HTTP) site, you are
    >> somewhat assured the provider is well-known and unlikely to get their
    >> kicks by providing corrupted software.
    >>
    >> Isn't using a torrent kinda like buying your women off the street?

    >
    > I belong to a private tracker that only allows certain qualified uploaders.
    > There are some 81 thousand registered users. They run a very tight ship
    > and you can only be invited by a reputable 'power user'. There are no
    > leach only users, you are required to seed what you download and maintain
    > a 1:1 ratio. The use of DHT is disabled to keep everything private.
    > And if you're going to remain idle for more than 3 days you have to 'park'
    > your account or it will be deleted.
    >
    > I like torrents because the swarms share bandwidth responsibilities. I let
    > what I've download seed 24/7. The last file I downloaded was 710 MB.
    > My ratio on just that file is 6.68:1 having seeded it for over 2 weeks
    > after the download. I can see now that the leechers have pretty much died
    > off but I'll continue to let it seed so I don't appear idle.
    >
    > When you use public torrents you take your chances. Have good defenses if
    > you use Windoze or just use linux.
    >


    Against what?

  12. Re: BitTorrent update

    On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:30:27 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:

    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> You must have missed the point.
    >>
    >> The point was, this was a valid question on security.

    >
    > I see, fair enough.
    >
    >
    >> You correctly assume I don't know how torrents work, but you perhaps
    >> didn't consider I was looking for knowledge -- an answer.
    >>
    >> Let's try again....
    >>
    >> So who creates and distributes CRCs? Can this CRC also be hacked by a
    >> person looking to cause trouble?

    >
    > CRC, Hash tables, or whatever you call them, are created from the file
    > content itself. All files have CRCs, this is how the OS knows the file is
    > not corrupt, or not just plain nonsense.
    >
    >
    >> Or is the file's CRC maintained on some "respectable" site, and then the
    >> torrent software simply fetches the various parts from wherever,
    >> comparing parts with CRCs of each part, and when there is a mismatch,
    >> going after the same part elsewhere?

    >
    > The original "tracker" tells the torrent client everything it needs to
    > know about the particular torrent. Every node in the network then
    > maintains integrity.
    > Those parts of the torrent that fail the test, are dropped. Similarly,
    > those nodes on the network that fail are blocked and dropped. Only good
    > copies of files are ever transferred, making for multiple perfect copies
    > of the original source file.
    >
    >
    >> What about security considerations when allowing unknown people to
    >> access your PC for torrent file parts.

    >
    > So long as the client software is not written by a blind man, people can
    > only access the files relevant to the torrent. Some clients take this
    > further and won't even let you access files if you're client is not set to
    > "seed", or share what it already has, and most clients report you for not
    > doing so (to other clients that are listening).
    >
    > Any badly written software running on a network can be exploited to allow
    > full access to files, but I've never heard this happening on a torrent
    > network.
    > P2P clients like Kazaa, however, are much more vulnerable because people
    > who don't know what they're doing have a tendency of sharing their whole
    > hard drive, or important documents.
    >
    > Torrent transfers can also be encrypted, to stop snooping.
    >
    >
    >> Finally, do you believe a torrent download is faster than a FTP and/or
    >> HTTP download?
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > That all depends on the bandwidth available via the particular HTTP, FTP
    > or Torrent server(s). Downloading from high-bandwidth sites such as
    > Microsoft, for example, will always max out my connection, but downloading
    > patches for games from all those horrible ad-supported "please pay to
    > download" sites will not, and a torrent would be more successful in fully
    > utilising available bandwidth. So it's all relative to the particular
    > download.
    >
    >
    > But torrents are distributed - they take the strain off of one server and
    > makes everyone a server. If one server goes down, it's no big loss,
    > there's always another. This makes files always available.
    >
    > For example, if the Ubuntu site went down, there'll always be somewhere
    > you can get a .torrent file from, and therefore still get a distro anyway
    > (ignoring all the mirror servers).
    >
    > When in doubt, ask Wikipedia:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.torrent


    The tracker I belong to is VERY picky as to what client they allow.
    I had to build Ktorrent 2.2.4 from source since it was the only version
    of Ktorrent on their allowed list. I tried the version that's in the
    depository and I got a message in the tracker tab that it wasn't allowed.
    I'm not much of a builder and it took me hours to figure out what all I
    had to install as a prerequisite to build KDE apps


  13. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > Against what?


    A bit off-topic; but can you guys please snip irrelevant stuff from your
    responses.

    cheers.

    --
    As we enjoy great advantages from inventions of others, we should be
    glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours;
    and this we should do freely and generously.
    --Benjamin Franklin

  14. Re: BitTorrent update

    On 2008-03-26, Meat Plow wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:13:25 +0000, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I'd JUST installed Transmission 1.06 (5136) before your post arrived,and
    >> it's using 100% of my down speed (and up speed) :-)
    >>
    >> I have installed ktorrent too but I think I'll stick with Transmission for
    >> now. If it ain't broke... :-D

    >
    > I've tried both Trans and Ktorr. I prefer KTorrent, it has some nice
    > features like being able to configure itself with a UPnP router for port
    > forwarding. I don't recall seeing that in Trans.
    >
    >


    UPnP is the thing I trust least on these apps. I have it disabled on
    my routers and all the apps that support it. kTorrent has some other
    very nice features, though.

    Particularly, the auto add, scheduler and web page plugins are very
    useful for me. PeerGuardian support is a plus, too...

    I haven't used Transmission yet, and probably won't until kTorrent
    does something that bugs me... ;-)


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  15. Re: BitTorrent update

    On 2008-03-26, Meat Plow wrote:
    >
    > The tracker I belong to is VERY picky as to what client they allow.
    > I had to build Ktorrent 2.2.4 from source since it was the only version
    > of Ktorrent on their allowed list. I tried the version that's in the
    > depository and I got a message in the tracker tab that it wasn't allowed.
    > I'm not much of a builder and it took me hours to figure out what all I
    > had to install as a prerequisite to build KDE apps
    >


    I use a few trackers, and they all have the same requirement. Rather
    than installing from source, though, do a search for a .deb file. I
    found a perfectly usable one at Ubuntu's site. IIRC, it was in either
    the gutsy-proposed or gutsy-backports repo, maybe the Hardy repos.
    Either way, I usually look to ftp.ubuntu.com or to the debian.org
    servers for a deb. Reason being that when further updates come out, I
    get notification.

    I use very little that isn't in deb form somewhere...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  16. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker schreef:
    > Meat Plow wrote:
    >> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:05:07 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >>


    >>>
    >>> How do you torrent enthusiasts really know for sure that the segmented
    >>> parts of downloaded programs are not infected with some undesirable
    >>> virus,
    >>> Trojan, etc.?


    >>
    >> When you use public torrents you take your chances. Have good defenses if
    >> you use Windoze or just use linux.
    >>

    >
    > Against what?


    Against malware being downloaded.

    Others have already explained why it _should_ be impossible to tamper
    with (parts of) a file being available.

    But it as absolutely not unheard of that infected files are made available!
    And once something is on a tracker it's difficult or even impossible to
    remove it.

    So after downloading it it's wise to first do a virus scan before
    running it on a less robust OS.

    Basically I don't expose my Windows computer to the net, it is for
    business only.

  17. Re: BitTorrent update

    Dirk T. Verbeek wrote:

    >> Against what?

    >
    > Against malware being downloaded.
    >
    > Others have already explained why it _should_ be impossible to tamper
    > with (parts of) a file being available.
    >
    > But it as absolutely not unheard of that infected files are made available!
    > And once something is on a tracker it's difficult or even impossible to
    > remove it.
    >
    > So after downloading it it's wise to first do a virus scan before
    > running it on a less robust OS.
    >
    > Basically I don't expose my Windows computer to the net, it is for
    > business only.




    The same is true of ALL transfers, it is not specific to torrents.

    And there's no "should" about it - you would have to make two different
    files look identical, in which case, they are!

  18. Re: BitTorrent update



    "Dirk T. Verbeek" wrote in message
    news:47ebb6a6$0$14352$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
    > Cork Soaker schreef:
    >> Meat Plow wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:05:07 +0000, John F. Morse wrote:
    >>>

    >
    >>>>
    >>>> How do you torrent enthusiasts really know for sure that the segmented
    >>>> parts of downloaded programs are not infected with some undesirable
    >>>> virus,
    >>>> Trojan, etc.?

    >
    >>>
    >>> When you use public torrents you take your chances. Have good defenses
    >>> if
    >>> you use Windoze or just use linux.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Against what?

    >
    > Against malware being downloaded.
    >
    > Others have already explained why it _should_ be impossible to tamper with
    > (parts of) a file being available.
    >
    > But it as absolutely not unheard of that infected files are made
    > available!
    > And once something is on a tracker it's difficult or even impossible to
    > remove it.
    >
    > So after downloading it it's wise to first do a virus scan before running
    > it on a less robust OS.


    Less robust than typing in the user(root) password when prompted type of OS?
    You can't stop stupid users by adding a prompt to continue, they just will.

    >
    > Basically I don't expose my Windows computer to the net, it is for
    > business only.


    You can.. its safe unless you are an idiot.


  19. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    > told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    > removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >
    > Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    > around 1kB/s normally!).
    >
    > Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed "properly"?
    > Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will be the same
    > situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.


    Without getting into a 'mine is better than yours' debate, I have tried
    several torrent clients and eventually settled on deluge, however, I
    notice that the upcoming 8.04 has transmission as its default torrent
    client.

  20. Re: BitTorrent update

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > I tried installing the latest version of the BitTorrent client to be
    > told that it conflicts with the BitTorrent already installed. Tried
    > removing it but it seems to be integral to the Gnome desktop.
    >
    > Tried BitTornado and it's crap (getting 80kB/s at best, and rarely,
    > around 1kB/s normally!).
    >
    > Any way I can get around this and get BitTorrent installed "properly"?
    > Under Windoze I'm getting full speed, so assume it will be the same
    > situation under Ubuntu, if I could get it installed.


    Slightly off topic response...

    According to the CBC (network TV), if you are in Canada the
    Bell/Sympatico system of ISPs are applying some heavy duty traffic
    shaping to unencrypted packet transfers. Particularly video and
    bittorrent. Shaw limits bandwidth based on the client name (multiple
    private individuals have talked with their techsupport and some will
    confirm this). According to certain "news" web sites the same thing is
    happening with individual ISPs in the States as well. This *may* explain
    your transfer rate.

    An even more off topic aside...

    Both Bell/Sympatico and Shaw pay for the speed of their connection not
    the volume going through it (from a friend of a dial-up ISP owner who
    has the same deal).

    Later
    Mike

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast