Talk:Vuze/Archive 3

Is Vuze American Based?
If So This Should Be Mentioned —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterTheWorm (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That would go under Vuze, Inc. not Vuze (client). I'm contemplating changing the page name back to Vuze (client) so there won't be any more confusing like this. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vuze '"social" client'
Could someone please explain what a "social client" is? It appears to be the big difference introduced with the name change. Thanks. 121.73.20.61 (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC) K

I have no idea, look up social maybe? That is a quote from the developers so... &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  08:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Azureus is DEAD.
I want just to sum up, what others talked or mentioned. It leads to thinking of a very unethical situation.


 * Azureus is renamed to Vuze. Standalone Azureus is not provided any more.
 * Vuze requires licenses accepted to be used.
 * Vuze shares DRM'ed content.
 * Vuze sets priorities on friend networking and building such very close networking. Whilest standart Bittorrent-sharing is anonymous(with exception of IP).
 * Vuze website openly promotes illegal misuse of Bittorrent protocol for sharing copyrighted media. (Lastest of the Bond films, sharing of which being promoted on official website 10.11.08; also promoting (illegal) sharing of games, films etc)##
 * Vuze is closed-source. It is unclear if the core engine is still Azureus, but nevertheless it allows adding code or/and binding to the network that can log/report all activities of the client. Spyware in short.
 * Vuze`s license prohibits disassemly.

And the last, but not least:
 * Vuze`s license requires the person to be age 18+, so they can be held responsible.

If you sum things up, you get a spyware(network), that reports all actions of 18+ years old people and their close friends, whilst saving stuff in DRM(?!).

Dont get me wrong, that is too clear to see. Besides claming to use bittorrent protocol for illegal actions is unethic and criminal itself. You should BAN media companies instead that add protections, lawsuits etc,etc; and don`t buy or use their products. There are actors and companies that legally support content sharing without any restrictions, and they should get more attention. Its not Stone Age people, don't get forced to use a very old information distribution technology like CDs and DVDs.

'''I look forward for someone to get lastest GPLed Azureus and ... make a fork!

Hope it was a fun read, regards, FOSS User.'''

PS: Rest In Peace Azureus.

(##) I didn`t have enough time to look at the license agreement, but if someone has, please do it. I think you should expect what I expect: disclamers and other things, that nullify any claims that vuze promotes dling of illegal stuff. And putting all this on user shoulders instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.173.224.220 (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, check this: http://faq(DOT)vuze.com/?View=entry&EntryID=60 Any questions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.50.230 (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a debate or discussion forum on the subject. it is for improvement of the article on the subject. Discussion closed. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Vuze HD network
Vuze HD Network redirects to this page, yet there appears be very little written about it. Is this redirect correct, should more be written about it on this page or should the redirect be removed (with or without starting a new article )? My name is Jasper (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Vuze Toolbar
Just thought people should know, that when installing Vuze, despite not installing the toolbar, two programs are maliciously installed. They are AskService.exe and ASKUpgrade.exe. I don't know how to remove the programs without removing Vuze and they slow your computer right down, Internet is basically useless. However, this site Annoyances.org seemed to work. 68.149.187.113 (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

-I just removed a link to a fake vuze download, please keep an eye out for this kind of thing as malware shouldn't be given free promotion like this:
 * Vuze Download —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.61.176 (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Azureus Wike "Criticism" Section Addition
The "Criticism" section should include some mention that the transition from Azureus to Vuze has been very unpopular with the Users, for various reasons. I personally resent even the title of the article calling Azureus "Vuze". I use it all the time, and I call it Azureus. I will always call it Azureus and I will never call it "Vuze". If and when I am no longer able to use the software with it's old Azureus GUI, I will remove it immediately and start using another client.

The Vuze people can call it what they want. On my computer it's either Azureus or it's uninstalled and will never be used again.

````Jonny Quick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.137.251.249 (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Need to know why
I came to wikipedia to find out some torrent sites require Vuze. It seems that there must be something else happening than a simple torrent download. What info is given out or what unwanted use of my computer is happening with Vuze. If none then why the resetriction?

To download this torrent, you need a 1Click or P2P BitTorrent client Vuze http://kat.ph/the-60s-1999-dvdrip-divx-ddb-t3294912.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.34.171 (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Vuze
Yu need to say more about vuze then Azores because vuze is the new version not the old one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.82.158 (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

License
I saw that reverted someone's addition of "violated" to the license in the infobox, using this summary: "libelous allegation with a source. Furthermore, this field is about Vuze license itself, not the license it uses or violates." While adding "violated" is indeed not a good way to go about it, the licensing section of the article does clearly state that Vuze does not simply use the GNU license as is, which seems worth noting (I'm sure RMS would put it a little more harshly). --Rhododendrites (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Protected
Per the discussion at WP:AN3, I have fully protected the article for a month. Discussion on the various issues should now take place here. Black Kite (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"BiglyBT" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect BiglyBT. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. The Banner talk 21:15, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:The Banner, you keep reverting quite legitimate addition of relevant information about further development of the free software project. Please stop edit warring under a pretext of removing spam, which this section isn’t (or prove that it is). Andrej Shadura (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:The Banner, any comment on this? Andrej Shadura (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is up to you to prove that BiglyBT is a notable software-package. But up to now, it has failed multiple attempts and was removed as advertising everytime. WP:WTAF is the credo here. So, if you are able to write an article with multiple, in-depth, independent sources conform WP:RS, we can come anywhere. The Banner  talk 13:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, since BiglyBT being a liberated fork of Vuze by the original authors, it is at least as notable as Vuze itself, but even then it’s been mentioned in quite a few places apart from the FSF blog and TorrentFreak article:, , , , just to name a few. And while it may be not notable enough for a separate article (which I do not intend to write), it is notable enough development of Vuze to be mentioned in the article on Vuze itself. Andrej Shadura (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Vuze 4
Just to inform that a new version is out, 4.0.0.0:
 * http://azureus.sourceforge.net/download.php?os=1

Bugs
Some files are checked when completed. That may result in the beginning of the file missing. Therefore files must be downloaded / shared once more. The reason(s) is (are) unknown.