this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
1460 points (95.1% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54803 readers
630 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Qbitorrent, rtorrent and deluge can be run via docker with a web interface.
Yes but running a web interface on top of rtorrent is not as easy as transmision.
Qbittorrent-nox is available as a package on all major distors afaik. It has an official docker image aswell. Couldn't be any simpler to set up.
If you're trying to build it all from scratch, sure, but you specifically mentioned docker and there's plenty of high-quality docker images you can use - and it's no harder to use a qBittorrent docker image than a transmission docker image.
Here's the docker command for transmission:
and the equivelant for qBitTorrent:
I'm not even going to argue that the qBitTorrent docker image is technically easier as it has less to configure, it's all one command at the end of the day.
I don't want to argue about that, I personally avoid Docker if I can, but can't deny it's a great tool and very powerful for the right use cases.
What I wonder is: to you, in your opinion, those commands are really easier than "apt install transmission"?
If you read up through the thread, the person I responded to specifically said about transmission being the easiest to run via docker.
Oh, my apologies.