qBittorrent official forums

qBittorrent downloadpage redirects me to fosshub, where can i directly download qBittorrent without using fosshub?
I don't trust fosshub. Maybe they're tampering with the installer?

www.fosshub.com connects to many disgusting urls...
fosshub.com
www.fosshub.com
cloudflare.com
cdnjs.cloudflare.com
fonts.googleapis.com
googlesyndication.com
pagead2.googlesyndication.com
googletagmanager.com
www.googletagmanager.com
gstatic.com
fonts.gstatic.com
thisiswaldo.com
cdn.thisiswaldo.com

Edit, sourceforge isn't any better than fosshub and on github there's nothing in the releases page.
Isn't this project published anywhere trustworthy? Codeberg?

Github hosts the qBittorrent project which enables you to compile it from source code but it sounds like all you want is the pre-compiled binary installer. Fosshub is trustworthy. Ads & trackers are creepy but they're all over the web. Get a good open source ad blocker that also blocks trackers like uBlock Origin, Adblock Plus, or Brave browser and you'll be fine. Some VPNs like mine already have it built-in but browser-based blocking is your best bet. Its filtering is much more comprehensive and intelligent.

Fosshub isn't tampering with the qBittorrent installer and if they ever tried it'd be trivial to detect. It's digitally signed and additionally the checksums are published. Install GPG and you can independently verify the authenticity & integrity of the software yourself. See my previous post here → https://forum.qbittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?p=42758#p42758

I'm already using ublockorigin...
Not touching brave browser, that garbage isn't private at all.
I know about GPG and the checksums, it still sucks that qBittorrent is only published on disgusting fosshub and sourceforge.
What's the matter whit not publishing it on a private platform like codeberg?!"

HermaeusMora wrote:
> I'm already using ublockorigin...
> Not touching brave browser, that garbage isn't private at all.
> I know about GPG and the checksums, it still sucks that qBittorrent is only
> published on disgusting fosshub and sourceforge.
> What's the matter whit not publishing it on a private platform like
> codeberg?!"

Brave has a good reputation, is the most performant browser out there today, and it's fully open source. Everyone has access to the code so they can review or audit it, even modify it to their liking. Not sure why you hate Fosshub and Sourceforge so much. Nearly any site you visit nowadays serves at least some ads & tracking content. There's no escaping it. Codeberg has only been around for 5 years and its development community is less than 100,000 users deep. Github has over 100 million.

It really doesn't matter where qBittorrent chooses to host their project code & binaries. Both forms of the software are digitally signed using Public Key Crypto. I could obtain the installer directly from you or some other stranger, authenticate it, and run it as-is. Theoretically I could even get it from the Russian or Chinese government. It will either pass signature verification or it will fail.

LilTroy wrote:
> HermaeusMora wrote:
> > I'm already using ublockorigin...
> > Not touching brave browser, that garbage isn't private at all.
> > I know about GPG and the checksums, it still sucks that qBittorrent is only
> > published on disgusting fosshub and sourceforge.
> > What's the matter whit not publishing it on a private platform like
> > codeberg?!"
>
> Brave has a good reputation, is the most performant browser out there today, and it's
> fully open source. Everyone has access to the code so they can review or audit it,
> even modify it to their liking. Not sure why you hate Fosshub and Sourceforge so
> much. Nearly any site you visit nowadays serves at least some ads & tracking
> content. There's no escaping it. Codeberg has only been around for 5 years and its
> development community is less than 100,000 users deep. Github has over 100 million.
>
> It really doesn't matter where qBittorrent chooses to host their project code &
> binaries. Both forms of the software are digitally signed using Public Key Crypto. I
> could obtain the installer directly from you or some other stranger, authenticate it,
> and run it as-is. Theoretically I could even get it from the Russian or Chinese
> government. It will either pass signature verification or it will fail.

"most performant browser" i don't care about performance, i care about privacy. Brave is not private it's that simple.
trashworthy websites bombared with tracking and advertising requests, that's why.
100k vs 100mil, so what? github belongs to zucking microsoft, codeberg respects privacy, the choice shouldn't be difficult.
following something or someone because they are the majority isn't intelligent.

It is not just about the integrity.
Downloading from sourceforge/fosshub means being tracked, fingerprint, useragent, etc being collected.
Downloading from a site that doesn't track their users because they respect privacy, that's where this project should be hosted.

HermaeusMora wrote:
> "most performant browser" i don't care about performance, i care about
> privacy. Brave is not private it's that simple.
> trashworthy websites bombared with tracking and advertising requests, that's why.
> 100k vs 100mil, so what? github belongs to zucking microsoft, codeberg respects
> privacy, the choice shouldn't be difficult.
> following something or someone because they are the majority isn't intelligent.

What part about Brave being fully open source do you not understand? Anyone could modify it to be the most private browser ever created if they desired. Just because out of the box it comes with telemetry data, which can easily be disabled, isn't a dealbreaker. A lot of privacy advocates use Brave & Mullvad browser. The latter is just the Tor browser detached from the Tor network.

Yes, MS owns Github. They also developed the operating system that you're running right now lol. Or did you forget that you're in the Windows forum? FYI Github is good enough for the Tor & Signal projects. Why wouldn't it be sufficient for qBittorrent?

LilTroy wrote:
> HermaeusMora wrote:
> > "most performant browser" i don't care about performance, i care about
> > privacy. Brave is not private it's that simple.
> > trashworthy websites bombared with tracking and advertising requests, that's
> why.
> > 100k vs 100mil, so what? github belongs to zucking microsoft, codeberg respects
> > privacy, the choice shouldn't be difficult.
> > following something or someone because they are the majority isn't intelligent.
>
> What part about Brave being fully open source do you not understand? Anyone could
> modify it to be the most private browser ever created if they desired. Just because
> out of the box it comes with telemetry data, which can easily be disabled, isn't a
> dealbreaker. A lot of privacy advocates use Brave & Mullvad browser. The latter
> is just the Tor browser detached from the Tor network.
>
> Yes, MS owns Github. They also developed the operating system that you're running
> right now lol. Or did you forget that you're in the Windows forum? FYI Github is good
> enough for the Tor & Signal projects. Why wouldn't it be sufficient for
> qBittorrent?

What part about brave not being private do you not understand?
Opensource doesn't mean privacy.
Anyone could modify and redistribute the project isn't true either, "anyone" is not a coder.
"Anyone" will fail reading the sourcecode because of lack of knownledge.
Using telemetry opt-in by default is hypocrisy.
I'm not going into details, brave is not private. There are enough sources for anyone curious.
There is no download option on github, project is hosted there but releases are published elsewhere for whatever reason.
This debate is pointless, can't take people serious when they claim brave would be private. That alone speaks for itself.
And sourceforge and fosshub are still the same anti privacy garbage they've been.
More care for privacy from qbittorrent maintainers would be appreciated. Fosshub is hot garbage.

HermaeusMora wrote:
> LilTroy wrote:
> > HermaeusMora wrote:
> > > "most performant browser" i don't care about performance, i care
> about
> > > privacy. Brave is not private it's that simple.
> > > trashworthy websites bombared with tracking and advertising requests,
> that's
> > why.
> > > 100k vs 100mil, so what? github belongs to zucking microsoft, codeberg
> respects
> > > privacy, the choice shouldn't be difficult.
> > > following something or someone because they are the majority isn't
> intelligent.
> >
> > What part about Brave being fully open source do you not understand? Anyone
> could
> > modify it to be the most private browser ever created if they desired. Just
> because
> > out of the box it comes with telemetry data, which can easily be disabled, isn't
> a
> > dealbreaker. A lot of privacy advocates use Brave & Mullvad browser. The
> latter
> > is just the Tor browser detached from the Tor network.
> >
> > Yes, MS owns Github. They also developed the operating system that you're
> running
> > right now lol. Or did you forget that you're in the Windows forum? FYI Github is
> good
> > enough for the Tor & Signal projects. Why wouldn't it be sufficient for
> > qBittorrent?
>
> What part about brave not being private do you not understand?
> Opensource doesn't mean privacy.
> Anyone could modify and redistribute the project isn't true either,
> "anyone" is not a coder.
> "Anyone" will fail reading the sourcecode because of lack of knownledge.
> Using telemetry opt-in by default is hypocrisy.
> I'm not going into details, brave is not private. There are enough sources for anyone
> curious.
> There is no download option on github, project is hosted there but releases are
> published elsewhere for whatever reason.
> This debate is pointless, can't take people serious when they claim brave would be
> private. That alone speaks for itself.
> And sourceforge and fosshub are still the same anti privacy garbage they've been.
> More care for privacy from qbittorrent maintainers would be appreciated. Fosshub is
> hot garbage.

A project that is 100% OPEN source provides full transparency of their entire codebase. If they were to do anything shady it would eventually be spotted by members of the community during code review. It's just a matter of time. Millions of people have actually read Brave's code in part or in full. Think about that for a second. They carefully track changes to the code thanks to Github's superior software versioning control system that Linus Torvalds himself created. There's nothing hidden in Brave, guy. All you're complaining about are a couple default settings, because you're an end-user, but those can be changed. Since you insist that the browser isn't private though then I'll be more than happy to link you to some recent independent studies on Brave versus the other popular browsers. Even their analytics are privacy-preserving.

Private Browsing Forensic Analysis: A Case Study of Privacy Preservation in the Brave Browser → https://www.inass.org/2020/2020123126.pdf

University of Dublin Research Finds Brave “By Far” the Most Private Browser
Web Browser Privacy: What Do Browsers Say When They Phone Home? → https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf

Don't like something about the project? You can always fork it and go in another direction. Oh, and when you're ready to get serious about the privacy of your own OS give Tails Linux a spin → https://tails.net

You're welcome.