Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

BitTorrent, Inc. Acquires uTorrent

Posted by Zonk on Thu Dec 07, 2006 05:22 PM
from the now-torrenting-faster-than-ever dept.
ColinPL writes "BitTorrent, Inc. has taken the next step — the acquisition of uTorrent. In a joint announcement made today, the two firms have publicly solidified the merger. 'Together, we are pleased to announce that BitTorrent, Inc. and uTorrent AB have decided to join forces ... BitTorrent has acquired uTorrent as it recognized the merits of uTorrent's exceptionally well-written codebase and robust user community. Bringing together uTorrent's efficient implementation and compelling UI with BitTorrent's expertise in networking protocols will significantly benefit the community with what we envision will be the best BitTorrent client.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by badenglishihave (944178) on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:25PM (#17153612) Homepage
    With Cohen walking hand in hand with the MPAA nowadays, how will this affect the privacy of current Torrent users such as myself? I have to admit I'm a bit worried. It doesn't come as a big surprise though. Torrent's excellent code and features make for one of the best clients available right now.
    • what tickles me is that utorrents website advertises usenext, openly:

      'Access to MP3s, Movies & much more. Fast, Anonymous, and Easy!'

      One wonders if they got a tap on the shoulder 'get bought or you're screwed, we have new powerful friends'. It's a good codebase perhaps, but they've not exactly shown themselves to be trying to be legit.
      • By default torrent includes a list of torrent search engines. It's as if the developers are encouraging piracy rather than hiding behind the pretense that people can use the software for legitimate stuff. I reckon most bittorrent users, like me, use the protocol and their favorite client way more often for pirating music, movies, and porn than for downloading legitimate stuff.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          For fuck's sake, slashdot really should allow unicode. Pretend there's a \u00B5 before the third word of my previous post.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            It's the new anti (alt+0220)ber geek code they implemented with the last CSS update. Remain Calm, all is well!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Hate to say this, but torrent downloads are not anonymous. They can track your IP address, and can find out who you are from there.
    • by SpecBear (769433) on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:48PM (#17154056)

      ...how will this affect the privacy of current Torrent users such as myself?

      It won't. It's BitTorrent, you already have no privacy. Your IP address is readily available to anyone who cares to look.

      • Hardly my point. The privacy that concerns me now is any kind of software embedded into future versions of uTorrent. Obviously you will not have to use uTorrent if you choose not. But if Cohen has a handle on what goes into the client there is a possibility of tracking searches, monitoring filenames, reporting torrents with unrecognized hashes of movies, etc. It's stuff like this that current uTorrent users need to be made aware of.
        • by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Thursday December 07 2006, @08:12PM (#17156306) Homepage
          Not so long ago there were accusations that uTorrent was tracking searches, because it was presenting context-sensitive advertising. These allegations were firmly denied by the author, but it caused many people to think twice about this "miraculous" client. I'll be quite honest with everyone, I tried uTorrent and it didn't rub me the right way, but I'm fussy. I've been with BitComet for a while, I suffered through the tracker bans, and quite frankly if tracker operators think it wise to exclude people based on their software preference, it's really their loss because I can go elsewhere.

          The same applies to this Bittorrent/uTorrent merger. So what if Mr Cohen takes Bittorrent in a direction we don't like ? Are we forced to follow ? Heck no. On the odd chance that this group actually creates something better, we're free to embrace their brainchild, or pass on it and look for the next cool thing.

          What really grinds my gears though, is all the hubbub with the bittorrent "phenomenon". Seriously, what Mr Cohen has created is hardly any different from Kazaa or Napster, except for its so-called democracy. he's given everyone the freedom to easily spring up a tracker, which is really just an index server. So now instead of having one central hub that can be taken down, we have tens of thousands of puny little trackers that would require individual lawsuits to even try to take down, and no corporate entity behind them to pay "damages" to the litigators. Congrats! Give him a pat on the back for pulling off one of the first solid implementations of the painfully obvious evolution of decentralized file sharing. He didn't cure cancer, he didn't create peace in the middle east, he just took everyone's ideas and made them reality. Now move along, nothing more to see.
          • by julesh (229690) on Friday December 08 2006, @04:50AM (#17159978)
            If BitTorrent is just a more-decentralized version of Kazaa or Napster, how come I get substantially faster transfer rates with BT than I ever did with either of those applications?

            Face it, the reason BT is so popular is because it is incredibly well engineered. The use of torrent files rather than simple searches with small hash sets (necessary in order to allow search results to be transferred effectively) allows small partial blocks to be shared more effectively and robustly than any other P2P file transfer system has ever allowed. Decoupling search from file transfer has allowed different people to concentrate on different aspects of the problem and evolve their systems with no interdependency on network updates. The use of a centralised tracker rather than the currently-in-vogue decentralised alternatives (DHT, network search) to find sources results in substantially better transfer rates, with only a small reliability sacrifice. And with a DHT as a fallback, not even that.

            Yes, none of these ideas were originally Cohen's. But as the first to combine them in a single application, I have nothing but respect for his work.
          • by Crayon Kid (700279) on Friday December 08 2006, @05:09AM (#17160052)
            I've been with BitComet for a while, I suffered through the tracker bans, and quite frankly if tracker operators think it wise to exclude people based on their software preference, it's really their loss because I can go elsewhere.
            They don't ban clients just because of "software preference". Usually that client does something bad or dumb, which causes problems and unneeded extra bandwidth consumption for the tracker, for the peers or for everybody. Gratuitous extra bandwidth consumption in a piece of software whose main purpose is to reduce it is pretty stupid, you have to admit.

            Furthermore, the BitComet client had its history of acting like an asshole, ignoring tracker restrictions, not respecting private flags and so on. And that's just bad form.
    • by LordSnooty (853791) on Thursday December 07 2006, @06:45PM (#17154968)
      how will this affect the privacy of current Torrent users such as myself? I have to admit I'm a bit worried. It doesn't come as a big surprise though.
      The answer is, use an OSS client like Azureus - which would be forked immediately if something like this happened.
  • Ahhh... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    uTorrent. My favourite bittorrent client.

    Now THAT programmer is someone who cares about quality.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2006, @06:19PM (#17154574)
      http://digg.com/tech_news/BitTorrent_merges_with_u Torrent [digg.com]

      Some answers from #uTorrent-questions:

      -will uTorrent be ported to Linux?
      probably

      -how many lines of code is it comprised of?
      ~50-60K

      -will encryption be removed?
      no (answered by Bram)

      -features most important to you (directed @ Bram)
      low memory footprint, code size, cpu usage

      -is there any thoughts to an osx client?
      (Bram) we plan to produce an up to date osx client, but that's significant porting work

      -are there any features that will be removed from uTorrent?
      (Bram) we're leaving the uTorrent client mostly alone for now, on the grounds that people like it (further defined 'mostly' as in, not much of anything substantive will change)

      -will uTorrent be replacing the original python client?
      (Bram) we aren't announcing integration plan details right now

      -Bram, are you talking with asus and other router makers for putting uTorent in there?
      (Bram) we're talking to lots of people

      -will uTorrent ever be open-sourced?
      (Bram) not in the forseeable future, but we'll continue to maintain an open source reference implementation

      -Bram, you said before that you're not a big fan of protocol header encryption... do you still stand behind this?
      (Bram) it isn't much harder for an isp to recognize encrypted headers than unencrypted headers.

      -will content be monitored?
      (Bram) absolutly not

      -does the uTorrent codebase compile on linux today (in your labs?)
      (ludde) No

      -ludde can't develop anything new for uTorrent?
      (ludde) bittorrent inc will do the majority of the development work

      -what IDE was uTorrent developed on?
      (ludde) Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 with a few routines written in visual cobol. uTorrent was written in C++ with some tiny chunks of assembly

      -will uTorrent continue to be free?
      (Bram) utorrent will continue to be available and continue to be free (as in, no cost, not open source)

      -Utorrent uses a lot of Windows API's right? Won't that be a problem when porting to *nux/OSX
      (ludde) Yes, the UI is tightly bound to Windows APis, however, the core backend is easier to port.
      (Bram) the utorrent UI is windows native, so porting that part to osx or linux is a significant amount of work (but planned to be done at some point)
  • The end? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blueCommand (990998) on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:26PM (#17153646) Homepage
    Let's hope it's not the end of a perfectly fine BT client. Maybe I've lived long enough with the embrace, extend, extingush thing, but this doesn't feel that good :(
    • Re:The end? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Christopher_Edwardz (1036954) on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:44PM (#17153974)

      I thought the very same thing when I read the title.

      uTorrent was an awesome piece of software. It.just.worked. It was small, non-invasive, and non-evilware.

      My heart sank.

      I have no faith that this would be anything other than the death of uTorrent as a usable client.

      (Same as winamp years ago, same as winternals, same as ... the list goes on.)

      Oh well, which client does one use next?

  • on IRC (Score:5, Informative)

    by Don Negro (1069) * on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:31PM (#17153722)
    Bram and Ludde are answering questions on #utorrent-questions -- irc.p2p-network.net

  • by kryten_nl (863119) on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:32PM (#17153748)
    ... I'd like to turn this into an "Ask Slasdot". Which client should I use, are there any good GPL clients or promissiong projects?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      http://www.binarynotions.com/halite.php [binarynotions.com]

      Open source, very small (473 kb), looks promising.
    • The Curses version of the official Bittorrent client (you use Unix, of course :-). For me, it's by far the best client to leave on overnight, because it's far more stable than any X-based torrent client (your X might be more stable than mine. I use nvidia drivers). I run it in a screen session, and I've never seen anything go wrong in many many days of running time.

      Unlike the 'console' version, It provides a nice display of current upload and download rates and a progress bar. It doesn't seem to support m
      • There is a 'launchmany' curses mode for the official client that will process all the torrents in a given directory. I recall the exact name of the command at the moment, but it's slick in that it will periodically scan a directory for new torrent or that a torrent has been removed. It will display the upload/download stats for each torrent on the screen and scroll this information if you have too many torrents to display in the current terminal. The advantage of this compared to running multiple instanc
    • libtorrent with the rtorrent front-end. http://libtorrent.rakshasa.no/ [rakshasa.no]
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Rtorrent [rakshasa.no] is by far the torrent client with the smallest footprint.

        I tried them all to get one that worked on a 486 with 60MB RAM and no X. Rtorrent (with ncurses ui) was the only one that didn't max out the resources.

        Now I can turn my 4Ghz energy hog off at night, and do my downloading on the 486, which uses about as much electricity as a light bulb.

        (For ed2k on the same machine I use mldonkey [sourceforge.net].

  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:43PM (#17153960)
    I liked uTorrent because it wasn't Bittorrent. An alternative supplier with a great client who wasn't in bed with the MPAA. Makes me wonder if MPAA money was behind this acquisition.

    Reminds me of the time when Microsoft couldn't compete with another x86 assembler on the market. They bought it out, and rather than use it to replace the relatively awful MASM, killed it instead.

    Will uTorrent face the same fate? Can we all make money by writing a better BT than BT and taking money for it afterwards now?

    • Azuerus would have went first dont you think? They are actively trying to expand what they do with videos and such. uTorrent was/is strickly what it says it is, a client to manage torrents that leaves a very small footprint.
  • by ZDRuX (1010435) * on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:47PM (#17154036)
    Ladies and gentleman, maybe it's time you start archiving all the current and future version of uTorrent incase they decide to implement "features" you don't want. Having a copy sit somewhere on CD isn't a bad idea anyway. I have personally tried uTorrent and don't like it, and went back to Azureus. Mainly because I have gotten too used to the interface, and it's open-source project so I know what I`m getting.
  • I never liked either of them. uTorrent is Windows only and BitTorrent is somewhat lacking on the Mac. As much as I think Azureus is cool, I am starting to take a liking to Torrent Flux [torrentflux.com]. Plus... I can run it on my hosting site.
  • by Knowbuddy (21314) on Thursday December 07 2006, @06:22PM (#17154616) Homepage Journal
    Disclaimer: I'm the guy that wrote TorrentSpy (the application, not the web site) and have contributed a small amount of code to the Python/core BT client and tracker. I haven't written any code for BT in a while, nor have I chatted with Bram in literally years, but ...

    From what I remember, Bram always viewed the Python/core as a sort of "reference implementation" -- it was never his goal to make the Python client or tracker the end-all be-all.

    Why is it then surprising that he'd want to bring on a client that doesn't have to be Open Source, and thus doesn't have to be clean and perfect, but is still sexy as hell? He still keeps his reference implementation that supports the features and is easy to reimplement a dozen times in two dozen languages ... but he also gets something he can brandish at anyone who wants to throw money at BT.

    Remember that his goal since incorporating has been to legitimize and broaden the adoption of BT. A sexy client is a huge step towards that goal. It's not like Sony or the MPAA or whomever is going to distribute a customized version of Azureus any time soon -- it's a beast! But a custom version of uTorrent? A 1MB executable that you could throw on a CD that requires zero install? YTF not? Remember also that Strigeus has been working towards licensing out the core engine for uTorrent.

    Plate. Shrimp. Plate of Shrimp.

    Some of you are excessively paranoid. You know that, right?

    (Yes, yes, I know: "Welcome to Slashdot".)
  • Explanation request (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rg3 (858575) on Thursday December 07 2006, @06:28PM (#17154694) Homepage
    Reading some of the comments in here and from people chatting in the IRC channels linked from a previous comment, I see many people are worried about this. In one corner we have Bram Cohen, a man which designed the bittorrent protocol and provided an open source, multiplatform, reference implementation of it. He also has a website that linked to illegal content, apparently, and made a deal with the MPAA so it would comply with the law (DMCA). Else, he could have been sued and lose a lot of money, I understand. On the opposite corner we have the utorrent author, someone who is apparently a good programmer that provided a free, non open source client, which is tiny, featureful and runs very well under its platform, which is Windows.

    Now, when I read people saying they don't trust (sic) Bram Cohen and that they will no longer update utorrent, or that this will be a bad thing, I don't really understand why they are worried. Is it for technical reasons? Do you fear utorrent will stop being tiny _if_ it's made multiplatform? What motivates that fear? Something from the past that I missed? Or is it because of the deal between Cohen and the MPAA? If so, why do you consider it bad? Do you fear the bittorrent protocol and official implementation will suffer because of that deal and that same situation will extend to utorrent? Honest questions, really. Please, englighten me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      What motivates that fear?

      I think the fear is that the featureful, small uTorrent client the world loves will now be "improved" to provide fast dollars for the new owners. And how do you do that these days? Stuff advertsing into your product, turn off advanced features and produce a "pro" version, "encourage" your community to download your commercial stuff, and when they resist then automatically "upgrade" their client for them to follow the new "strategic direction".

      The uTorrent community is the bigges

  • The only important question is: Will they release uTorrent code as Free Software?
  • by WheresMyDingo (659258) on Thursday December 07 2006, @09:27PM (#17157108)
    prior to this uTorrent ate nanoTorrent which ate picoTorrent, only moments after femtoTorrent was devoured. we must stop this before there is just one giant torrent walking this earth, devouring everything in its path!
    • Re:Leave it alone! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0siris (123757) on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:33PM (#17153756) Homepage
      So why worry? If you keep the build you have right now I doubt it'll be incompatible with torrents any time soon. What I have right now does the job fine, and I don't really need any new features.
      • How do I know the build I have now doesnt have some bullshit back door to either autoupdate or spy on me? Its not exactly open source. If MPAA money is involved in this then utorrent users should be wary about downloading MPAA owned copyrights. I would think that the current version is now a moderate privacy and security risk.
      • Re:Leave it alone! (Score:4, Informative)

        by thepotoo (829391) <thepotoospam@y3.1415926ahoo.com minus pi> on Thursday December 07 2006, @06:15PM (#17154502)
        uTorrent phones home for the DHT network feature; it's pretty important if you care about speed.
        Shut down the uTorrent central server, and you've effectively halved (or worse) everyone's download/upload speed.

        It's a serious problem; if it happens there could be an alternate server, but it would require third party hacks.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          uTorrent phones home for the DHT network feature; it's pretty important if you care about speed.
          Shut down the uTorrent central server, and you've effectively halved (or worse) everyone's download/upload speed.


          Not quite. It uses router.utorrent.com to bootstrap into the DHT network. But if it already has known nodes (e.g. saved from the previous session) then it wouldn't 'phone home' as you call it. The whole purpose of the Kademlia DHT feature is to be decentralized, i.e. without the need for a central
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        ...don't forget to turn off the auto update feature, if it has one. I used to use uTorrent before switching over to linux, and I don't remember if it has an auto-updater like some other clients do.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I've got part swallowed-by-the-evil-empire and part they'll-fix-it-til-its-broke feelings about this. utorrent was the only client that really gave me what I wanted. The trouble with perfection is that from the top you can only go down.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      In soviet russia BitTorrentsU
    • I wonder about the analogies of the original Napster used to download music compared to BitTorrent used to download movies and tv shows. If the bittorrent clients in 2010 are all like Napster turned out to be 5 years later... *shudder*
    • uTorrent is smaller and faster. The downside is that it isn't cross-platform (and very ugly when using wine).
    • Re:Azureus (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sarusa (104047) on Thursday December 07 2006, @05:57PM (#17154228)
      If you need all the features of Azureus there's nothing else that can match it.

      On the other hand, uTorrent does just about every damn thing most people need and it does it in 1/10th the CPU usage and 1/100th the memory usage of Azureus.

      I like never having to worry about whether my torrent program is running in the background while I'm doing foreground tasks so I love uTorrent. I just leave it on all the time, running away, and never even notice it while I'm playing NWN2 or editing photos or watching videos or whatever. And that's the big win.
    • have you ever tried playing games in the background with Azureus open? With uTorrent you can play nearly any game with no noticeable performance penalty unless it's a hard drive happy game. uTorrent is so efficient that it uses fewer CPU cycles than my application firewall, that's impressive.
      • Hmm, I use uTorrent and it uploads just fine. I always try to upload at least as much as I download.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Most people that use uTorrent, use it based on the predicate that it allows for more privacy

      I've never heard of anyone using it for that reason. Personally, I use it primarily for it's feature-set and small footprint, and its on that basis that I recommend it to others.
    • Of course, since we don't have the source, we don't know if uTorrent can surreptitiously download "improvements" mandated by the new owners.
    • Re:bleh (Score:4, Informative)

      by ScrewMaster (602015) on Thursday December 07 2006, @07:18PM (#17155504)
      uTorrent was written by one guy by the name of Ludvig Strigeus, not some random dudes. He's Swedish, I think. One of the sharper coders on the planet, I'd say. Anyway, he never wanted to release the source because ... he didn't want to release the source. No particular reason why he should have, really. This idea that every programmer that does something way cool somehow owes the community his source code is just silly. He gave away a hot product for free, that's good enough for me.

      Not that I wouldn't mind taking a look at that codebase. You know, just for curiosity's sake.