Thank You. Will definitely check it out given uTorrent on Windows does't get much update anymore.
I want to ask, were Rasterbar-Libtorrent and Libtorrent always the same thing? I thought they were different implementation? Did they merge or did memory serve me wrong.
I couldn't Google anything useful so I just ask. In the era of streaming It has been far too long since I look at anything BT.
For some fun confusion, there's this libtorrent library, commonly called libtorrent-rasterbar by distros. And libTorrent by rakshasa, which is used by rTorrent.
I've considered something like this for a web music player I have, but it doesn't seem to have an easy setup for downloading individual files from a torrent. And the latency would add gaps between songs.
Libtorrent-rasterbar has supported sequential downloading for a long time. Are you sure you're not thinking of the other libtorrent (libtorrent-rakshasa)?
I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I think uTorrent has better network code and produces faster downloads. I use despite its slight ugliness compared to transmission.
There are two libraries called libtorrent - Rasterbar-libtorrent (the one in this discussion, made by arvidn) and rakshasa-libtorrent (made by rakshasa).
I just tried it myself and uTorrent does give me better transfer speeds than Transmission (~80kb/s vs. ~60kb/s). It's not much and I tend to like Transmission more because it's Open Source but I wonder why there is such a difference.
Of course Deluge, written in python can not compare to uTorrent's tightly optimized C++ code. Transmission is better, but its back-end (libTransmission) is not as well optimized as libtorrent-rasterbar. Any C++ client based on rasterbar such as qBittorrent should offer similar performance to uTorrent.
If you don't require streaming, older uTorrect clients are still your best option. If you do, it IS possible to install the recent version of uTorrect without any external adware and to disable all of the banner ads.[1]
reply