4

I noticed a new tag .

It only has one post, but I did my usual thing of running a search which turned up ~40 questions mentioning rtorrent.

Is this a tag we need? If so

  • should old posts mentioning it be retagged?
  • who can make a nice tag wiki for it? (not me, I am clueless)
  • Have added the tag to posts that seemed to benefit from it and also created [rutorrent] and am now working on that – Zanna Aug 27 '17 at 5:22
9

We have tags for some other BitTorrent programs1, such as , , , ,, and--though it's only on a handful of questions and I don't think I know anyone who uses it anymore--.

It looks like we also have a number of questions about those programs that don't have those tags. Assuming we do retag posts with , we could add appropriate tags to some other BitTorrent-related posts as well.

I use qBittorrent and the tag has helped me search for questions and answers. In at least one case, I believe that noticing the tag on a question led me to read the question and post an answer, though it's possible I'd have noticed and answered anyway. I presume the tag will confer a similar benefit. It's not as popular as several other BitTorrent programs but I think it does see significant use.

I'd say yes, we should add the tag to posts it applies to, including old posts.

1: It's common to call them "BitTorrent clients" but I use the more awkward-sounding term "BitTorrent program" because, from a networking standpoint, these programs behave both as a client and as a server. When BitTorrent was new, some people called them "servents" (server/clients) but that terminology doesn't seem to have caught on. (The other distinction for BitTorrent is between client and tracker, but many BitTorrent "clients" have the ability to operate as a traditional centralized tracker, and almost all of them support distributed tracking, usually via DHT, which is more significant today than centralized tracking.)

  • As to your footnote: I think "client" is fine here even though the Torrent protocol doesn’t fit into the client-server paradigm. However, it’s still a client application for a communication protocol and I’ve heard the term “client“ a bunch of in relation to “allows the use of [not-necessarily-client-server communication protocol]”. – David Foerster Aug 19 '17 at 12:49
  • @DavidFoerster I agree that "client" is fine, since it has become the generally accepted term and is usually clear, and I definitely wouldn't edit that term out of posts. I'm not really sure about your reasoning though--it's also a server application for a communication protocol. – Eliah Kagan Aug 19 '17 at 12:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .