It offers a web UI. Enable it and forward the port. Done.
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
29 points (96.8% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54577 readers
142 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's all bundled in one. What I'm asking about is separating the UI from the client.
You mean something like running qbittorrent-nox and connecting to it using web ui?
Yes! Is that possible?
Yes, you use qBitTorrent-nox with the web UI. It’s built in.
I'm not looking to have them bundled. I want the management interface separate.
qBittorrent-nox is as separate as you can get. It can be run on the server without GUI. It also provides WebUI, that can be modified if you wish, but you don't have to use it. Moreover, most (if not all) settings can be edited through the text file and torrents added using CLI.
qBittorrent, when Web-UI is enabled (doesn't matter if it's nox or not), provides and API too. IF you have a client you can connect and manage everything using it. However, the only clients I know are for android.
He/she wants to have the web UI (the client) on a different vm/machine, as far as I understand, which is not possible at the moment with qbittorrent.
As others have said, the solution could be deluge or rtorrent.
Thank you. :) So the answer is that it's not possible.
I'll take a look at the other options you mention.
But that's the literal point of WebUI of any program. To make it possible to connect and manage the program from any device from the remote machine. And there is a reason why most developers choose to use WebUI - you don't have to create multiple cleants for every OS and every internet connected device has a web browser. In fact web browser can be considered the client in this scenario.
What could be the reason why anyone could be against WebUI? I can only think of one advantage of native client that has to be installed is that it would make of possible to associate torrent files and magnet links with it.
And lastly, if you would search for qbittorent remote client most likely in top 5 results you would find electorrent. I haven't tried it but at least description claims that it can be used with qBittorrent.
Edit: heh it seems I managed to reply to my own comment.
You're probably looking for something like Deluge.
I'm not sure if that's what you mean but if you're using docker compose there's a variable called WEBUI_PORT
That just changes the port of the bundled UI; it doesn't allow you to connect a UI to a separate client.
oops sorry my bad
Do you want to have a single UI for multiple clients?
Other way around - I want to have multiple UIs for a single client.
But why though? You could set up a proxy or something, but I can't imagine why you would do that
I want to have multiple UIs in front of the same client.
qbitorrent has a webgui built in. You can access it simultaneously from multiple machines over http