transgui VS nbdkit

For example, down that page there's a Transmission remote GUI screenshot (I use it as Transmission here is a daemon on my headless XigmaNAS server).

https://github.com/transmission-remote-gui/transgui

What would be wrong with it or anything similar? Every information is just there, no need to swipe left and right to read information that has been either hidden elsewhere or, worse, taken away.

Client éloigné prometteur tiers

Client distant tiers prometteur

Actually, not such a bad question. There's at least Synapse[1]. It even has a third-part broker to accept transmission GUIs by Drew Dewalt[2]. Why didn't they just reuse Transmission protocol from the get-go, to leverage the great Transmission-Remote-GUI[3] for example, is beyond me.

Unfortunately, there's just not enough interest in the project and no adoptance.

Transmission, at least previously, never have been too resource-friendly, so a lean and mean Rust alternative would be great.

1. https://github.com/Luminarys/synapse

2. https://sr.ht/~sircmpwn/broca/

3. https://github.com/transmission-remote-gui/transgui

For something a bit easier I'd look into Transmission or Deluge. The big difference is qbittorrent ran headless only has a web interface, whereas deluge and transmission both have remote dekstop clients as well mobile-friendly web interfaces and apps available

If someone asks me to install a Torrent client on a single machine, my favorite would be QBittorrent, however at home I use XigmaNAS' Transmission client extensively, and operate it from other machines in the LAN using the Transgui interface (also available on Windows and MacOS). This allows me to turn off everything but the NAS, which with all RAID disks spun down and a TDP of 15 Watts makes for some good energy savings.

https://github.com/transmission-remote-gui/transgui

Transmission Remote GUI

This explains why the only other Lazarus project I know (transgui) is very similar, a GUI to another program.

This is correct, but doesn't quite explain why. It's because when you accept contributions from a variety of authors, without using a CLA, then your code base ends up with a patchwork of copyright, making relicensing practically impossible as you have to get buy-in from every author or else determine that author's contributions and remove/rewrite them.

GPL/LGPL are excellent licenses, but this patchwork of copyright can apply for any license you use. For a small project we wrote which was under BSD, we recently had to make a small (non-functional) change to the license, and we got buy-in from all the authors to do this which took quite a long time: https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit/-/commit/952ffe0fc7685ea775...

That second link is wrong, should be: https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit/-/commit/a956e2e75d6c88eeef...

I think an exception might be made for a plain "C-like" struct that doesn't initialize members or contain anything except basic types. In the specific example[0] the code is actually surrounded by extern "C" { ... } so I suppose that the compiler "knows" this is a plain C struct?

[0] https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit/-/blob/cd761c9bf770b23f678f...

We relicensed[1] a project which had 10 contributors, and we got every single one of them to do an Acked-by (by email) which took some weeks. That was the advice from our lawyers. Can't imagine the impossible hassle of doing the same for something like Linux.

[1] https://gitlab.com/nbdkit/nbdkit/-/commit/952ffe0fc7685ea775...