Questions about BitRocket abound

I've been using it since yesterday as a default client (had an update delivered already!) even though functionality is still missing and it has crashed like 4-5 times so far, everything works as expected (10/10 torrents downloaded correctly), being a 0.1 version future is looking good for this one, and it's not bloated at all. Every piece of info it provides is very useful for power users.
I would donate to this project.

Well, err, the new version (as shown in the screenshot) does in fact credit Clone and Libtorrent as #16 and #18 stated. The older versions used (and credited) Transmission and libTransmission).

My about window - 0.1(20) - says:

Uses libtorrent by Arvid Norberg of Rasterbar Software.
http://libtorrent.sf.net

I still prefer Transmission - KISS. Hope they fix their announce problems soon.

I tried it last night and it performed pretty well. Still not as fast as Azereus but it sure looks a lot better. The search function is kind of useless and the RSS function seems akward but the UI is generally nice and clean. Having a badged dock icon is a nice touch.

Anyway, it's just another case of Mac users going off the handle for nothing and the Mac press (like TUAW) pick up on it without looking further into it.

the about bitrocket says this
"Design and Implementation by Clone Software, Ltd.
http://www.clonesoftware.net/

Uses libtorrent by Arvid Norberg of Rasterbar Software.
http://libtorrent.sf.net

Hey, did someone actually check the 'about BitRocket' window? Guess not, 'cause it says:

"BitRocket uses portions of Transmission and libTransmission and are MIT licensed.

More information on these can be found at the Transmission web site (http://transmission.m0k.org/)."

Right..

Look. This is conjecture blown out of proportion. The reason this case is not routine is because the developer, well he's iffy.

Bit Rocket was originally released sans source code or any acknowledgments of any kind regarding any borrowed code. His company is called Clone Software, Ltd., and its site is a mostly empty WP blog. The group-think machine that is digg takes the circumstance and runs with it.

Those are the facts. My opinion is that the developer seems slightly less than professional. Look at his (Jolix) comments in this thread: http://www.tuaw.com/2006/09/05/bitrocket/#comments

Not very professional... It's really just a matter of the developer not understanding public relations very well. He could have quelled this nonsense some time ago.

it would be very big of this site to offer an apology, or some kind of "i'm sorry for shitting on your potential user base prospects".

Yeah i have yet to see proof of foul play at all, bunch of BS or cluelessness. Now it's possibly what #10 says, I saw the 0.1 (20) release where it was using libtorrent, not a clue if it used anything different like libtransmission before that since I caught it at the point it was using libtorrent, so all this bad publicity seems to be uncalled for in my eyes, specially because i haven't seen a damn thing. I'm going to keep an eye on it, seems like it might be a nice client and I don't see any reason to hate on it yet.

I think the big fuss is due to the fact that BitRocket DID use libtransmission. Jolix then pulled that build and began using libtorrent, presumably to get around some issues with Transmission's code and to get some bigger features (DHT, UPnP, etc.).

I think it's too earlier to dismiss it outright, but we'll have to see how it turns out. Just remember that Transmission 0.1 wasn't very feature-filled or pretty - it will take time for it to blossom.