https://github.com/retransmission/retransmission link to fork
Why does anyone use this over 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.
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?
Oh gosh, the bickering.
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.
😆👌
A core feature of any mature FOSS project.
As a maintainer, you can just ignore it most of the time 👌😎
Bonkers that its the default on many distros instead of qbittorrent
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.
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.
That is pretty good.
