Deluge Forum

To the Devs:

Thank you for creating a fine program. However, the inclusion of the "anonymous browser" as default is troubling.

- Please explain why this is not a plugin (including removing all UI features when it is not used)

- You dismiss TOR (which I personally agree is a bad idea for this situation), yet why should users place their trust in these proxies? Are their any sort of guarantees against logs, etc. being kept?

- Were any users requesting this sort of feature?

Please resist feature-creep. The last thing the world needs is another vuze-azureus monster.

Thanks again for all your hard work.

edit: I looked over the portion of the FAQ where it is stated that logs are not kept. However, no offense, but it is difficult to trust anyone who claims you are "totally anonymous" while using the internet.

qcompson wrote: Please explain why this is not a plugin (including removing all UI features when it is not used)

visibility. so even new users who dont know about the plugins know it's there. i dont know how many more times i'm going to have to say this, BUT IT DOES NOT USE ANY EXTRA RESOURCES if you dont use it. if it was adding bloat to deluge, i wouldnt have added it.

qcompson wrote: - You dismiss TOR (which I personally agree is a bad idea for this situation), yet why should users place their trust in these proxies? Are their any sort of guarantees against logs, etc. being kept?
edit: I looked over the portion of the FAQ where it is stated that logs are not kept. However, no offense, but it is difficult to trust anyone who claims you are "totally anonymous" while using the internet

so dont. how the hell would i prove it? i'm not going to defend myself for providing users with a proxy server if they want it. i tell you there are no logs, but there's nothing more that i can do. if you dont believe us, then dont use it. i can tell you right now, if my goal was to spy on people, i would've just made a closed-source bittorrent program. how can you prove that utorrent doesnt spy? deluge is open for all to see its code, which would be counter-productive if i wanted track people. also, the open-source community knows me. google my nick if you want. ask around. people know me. that's the best that i can do to "prove" it.

Why 2 (two) instances of Deluge are loaded after last update? One uses 15,4 MB and the other one 5,4 MB of memory.

First of all, great work on Deluge so far. I discovered it by browsing around the Ubuntu repositories, and have liked it enough that it's also now on my Windows machine (instead of uTorrent).
Anyway, this is a great idea! I do agree that it should be a plugin, as it seems like bloat just being there even if it isn't technically using any resources. My ISP was recently acquired by Comcast, though, so starting January 1st I may very well have a good use for this

One question, though: how many IPs do you expect the proxy servers to have (to begin with)? Is all of the information sent to and from the servers going to be encrypted to help prevent ISPs from just detecting and blocking these proxy servers as well?

SigiSi wrote:Why 2 (two) instances of Deluge are loaded after last update? One uses 15,4 MB and the other one 5,4 MB of memory.

you're probably talking about the dbus daemon. are you? or do you see two deluge.exe? more details are needed here

frandavid100 wrote:This integrated browser is a GREAT effort, though, I really didn't see this coming.

I totally agree. That's why I wonder why it's done. Because there are a few things that needs to be fixed. Instead of new "bloat crap" being created.

I personally hate programs that implement something badly and it's not even useful, just to add more features. ;( Usually for commercial companies that's made by marketing requesting something to be done. I have seen that too many times. It would be really cool if we could say that our program do X. And then X is implemented in such a way, it's really that you can say that it does X, but you really cant do anything with it, nor it's useful.

How about adding virtualization, so user can run deluge clients inside deluge client in virtualized pool. It would be cool and sexy.

Dunno. I have to check if those minor things that I have reported have been fixed. Or if all effects have gone to adding new "crap". I don't say that browser woudn't be useful for someone. But for most it's not useful. - AFAIK & IMHO

It's also bit unclear to me, why some features are features and some features are plugins? There should be some consistent line. Search Bar & Browser could be plugins as well.

markybob wrote:

SigiSi wrote:Why 2 (two) instances of Deluge are loaded after last update? One uses 15,4 MB and the other one 5,4 MB of memory.

you're probably talking about the dbus daemon. are you? or do you see two deluge.exe? more details are needed here

I think - 2 deluge.exe. Information is from the System Monitor (only relevant info):

Process 1: Deluge, Sleeping, ID 5869, Command Line: /usr/bin/python2.5/usr/bin/deluge, Memory (changing): 19,4 MB
Process 2: Deluge, Sleeping, ID 5863, Command Line: /usr/bin/python2.5/usr/bin/deluge, Memory (changing): 5,4 MB

I'm starting Deluge normal from the main menu.

When starting from terminal:

sergej@sergej-desktop:~$ deluge
checking for ubuntu...
found and fixing ubuntu
checking for ubuntu...
found and fixing ubuntu
no existing Deluge session
Starting new Deluge session...
deluge_core; using libtorrent 0.13.0.0. Compiled with NDEBUG.
Applying preferences
Pickling state...
Scanning plugin dir /usr/share/deluge/plugins
Initialising plugin NetworkHealth
Initialising plugin BlocklistImport
Initialising plugin DesiredRatio
Initialising plugin ExtraStats
Initialising plugin Scheduler
Initialising plugin MoveTorrent
Initialising plugin EventLogging
Initialising plugin WebUi
Initialising plugin SpeedLimiter
Initialising plugin WebSeed
Initialising plugin TorrentFiles
Initialising plugin FlexRSS
Initialising plugin TorrentCreator
Initialising plugin TorrentPeers
Initialising plugin NetworkGraph
Initialising plugin TorrentNotification
Applying preferences
Starting DHT...
Showing window
Loading TorrentFiles plugin...
Loading TorrentPeers plugin...
Pickling state...
Stopping DHT...
Saving fastresume data...
Saving uploaded memory...
Quitting the core...
core: removing torrents...
core: removing settings...
core: shutting down session...
core shut down.
sergej@sergej-desktop:~$

all seems ok...

btw: i'm using Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron alpha 2 with all updates to date, no mayor problems so far.

greetings

PS: downgraded to 0.5.7.1 - "double Deluge" problem gone...

markybob wrote: visibility. so even new users who dont know about the plugins know it's there. i dont know how many more times i'm going to have to say this, BUT IT DOES NOT USE ANY EXTRA RESOURCES if you dont use it. if it was adding bloat to deluge, i wouldnt have added it.

I suspected that was the reason. Honestly, I doubt there are any users of deluge who don't know about or use the plugins, since fairly basic features such as file selection and peer information are implemented as plugins, and users of Deluge are unlikely to be bittorrent novices. It also raises the question as to why an anonymous browser feature would have precedence over many of the other plugins and get it's own special default UI element (this is not intended in a tinfoil-hat context, it just seems like a strange choice of priorities).

markybob wrote: if you dont believe us, then dont use it.

Point taken. I certainly won't be using it, and no offense, but I hope it dies off quickly. In my opinion (which is hardly worth anything) I just don't think it's a good idea to have a whitelist such as this associated with a filesharing program.

I didn't mean to be antagonistic, or imply that you were trying something underhanded. I think Deluge is an excellent program, and I hope it continues to grow in popularity. Thank you and happy holidays!

I'm rather unimpressed, and would be shocked if I didn't know better, with the amount of bitching going on about the new anonymous browser. Frankly I think it's a really cool idea, not sure in what context I might use it, but well done markybob! Guys, I can't understand why you're personally attacking his work...you get it for free, and if you don't like the new WebUI you can simply turn it off. Ok, right now it won't disappear completely from the UI, but this is a **Release Candidate** and that will change before the release. Don't want to wait? Downgrade! But saying "no offense, but I hope it dies off quickly" is not excused because you tack the words "no offense" on the front of it: it's rude, plain and simple.

I think the constructive criticism of previous posters stands though, and I agree that this should behave like any other plugin. If it does, it's a great idea and I look forward to seeing what else markybob has in store for us.

wallacetheweasel wrote:But saying "no offense, but I hope it dies off quickly" is not excused because you tack the words "no offense" on the front of it: it's rude, plain and simple.

I apologize to anyone who found my comment rude. I intended to state a personal opinion, based on concern that a connection (and facilitation) to a whitelist of torrent sites could cause problems for Deluge later down the line; I also used the phrase, "dies off quickly" based on this portion of the FAQ (although I should have mentioned that I certainly don't wish financial hardship on the devs) :

and I'm hoping very much that our users agree with me and that the ads make up the cost. If we don't make enough from ads, we'll begin requesting donations. If we still don't make enough, then we'll take down the proxy servers and remove Deluge's internal browser (not to mention cry for being in the hole $1600). The future of this service is in your hands.

I'll shut up now.