Because Vuze is the name that they have given their useless adware overlay to the Azureus/Aeltis transfer core. Azureus was and is the name given to the kernel in the source code.
also, utorrent is the way to go. it has most of the features of azureus/vuze and is about 40 times smaller than azureus/vuze. its sad when people support open source without considering quality.
If you are worried about privacy, certainly not. You can never trust closed source code. Some would go so far as to say that you can never trust compiled binaries, although I only follow that rule for things such as libssl and other crypto libraries. uTorrent may be superior quality code, but license is never about code quality. I specifically mentioned that uTorrent is not Free Software, which is troubling for both the closed source aspect and ethical considerations.
its very important that we focus on efficiency and quality of open code.
Correct. I always prefer good open code to bad open code.
you should always encourage adoption of code which is better, regardless of whether it is open source, or it runs only on windows or not.
Wrong. You should always encourage code that is ethically the best choice for the job. If you are doing something unimportant, perhaps you can make do with a closed source piece of software, but you can never trust it. A copyleft license is also a big bonus, but not necessarily required for every project. Although if there are two similar choices, the Free Software choice is the better one.
Although I previously disregarded the features of the software itself, when designing your own software you should always attempt to incorporate maximum portability according to your limitations. Those who can and don't are not just bad programmers, but harmful to the software community.
the first step for vuze developers would be to accept that utorrent is not "some closed source Windows piece of crap", quoting you.
The first step would be for vuze/azureus developers to indeed recognize that uTorrent is a closed source Windows piece of crap from a license standpoint - one that they should not attempt to emulate. The second step is to realize that, while uTorrent code is not a good code model, the idea of a small footprint client is a good idea, at which point they should ditch Vuze entirely and throw out most of the cruft that has been incorporated into Azureus in the past 2 years.
remember that close-minded comments like yours inhibit wide-spread adoption of linux, despite it being much better in some ways than windows.
1) In some ways it is better, yes. In most ways they are simply different. I have no animosity towards Windows and only believe that a POSIX development environment is more amenable to my coding style. I don't even believe that the closed source license is terribly bad for much of the operating system - pragmatically I am only very worried about parts that I rely on for security or privacy.
2) I don't care about wide-spread adoption of Linux. If people like it, fine - good for them. I am never looking forward to the "year of the linux desktop." I will simply continue to use what I use and everyone else can make their own choice. I will continue to use the license to make what I use better, though (which is often not Linux, but a form of BSD or Mac).
people like you are convinced that any code, if open source is better than any other closed source code. which is plainly wrong.
I don't know if this is plainly anything. This is certainly what Richard Stallman believes. I do not agree with him for a variety of pragmatic reasons, but I can definitely see where he is coming from. For him, it is a matter of personal ethics.
However, anyone who thinks that using a closed source encryption program of firewall is better than using a really bad open source program is simply ignorant. Security through obscurity is not security.