transgui VS transmission-web-control

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.

Why bake libtransmission into the app instead of just using the transmission daemon's RPC?

What you've done actually makes it harder to use, because in order to configure any of transmission's settings (ports, connection/torrent connection limits, bandwith limits, etc) the user needs to dig around to find the transmission config folder and then manually edit JSON with a text editor - because your client doesn't expose any of transmissions numerous settings [1] to the user except for choosing the download folder.

I'm not sure why anyone would want to use this instead of Flood [2] or even old Transmission Web Control [3]

1: https://github.com/transmission/transmission/blob/main/docs/...

1: https://github.com/jesec/flood

2: https://github.com/ronggang/transmission-web-control

The remote UI was the one downside of Transmission, until this came out: https://github.com/ronggang/transmission-web-control

I have been able to install this: https://github.com/ronggang/transmission-web-control/wiki, in the transmission image.

Transmission also has alternative Web UIs that you can use: Combustion, Transmission Web Control, kettu and Flood for Transmission. The LinuxServer.io Transmission container has support for all of these.

UI is not too bad - docker container comes with bundled Transmission Web Control UI or standalone Transmission Remote GUI can be used on client...

+1 for Transmission Remote GUI. Also, in a pinch, this web UI is quite a bit better than the default one: https://github.com/ronggang/transmission-web-control/wiki.