this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
512 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
3873 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grue@lemmy.world 31 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Other routers have run OpenWRT straight from the factory before (various GL.iNet devices come to mind, not to mention the OG Linksys WRT54G -- it may not have been called "OpenWRT" as such, but OpenWRT descends from that firmware).

In what way is this device "designed specifically" for OpenWRT that those were not?

[–] 486@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Linksys WRT54G

The Linksys WRT54G did not run OpenWrt by default and the original OS does not even remotely resemble OpenWrt. What OpenWrt did use from the original OS was the Broadcom wireless driver because it was closed source (and a similar kernel version, so the driver could be used), since there was no driver in the mainline kernel.

But to try to answer the question, this device has been designed by the OpenWrt developers to fit their needs (and their users needs). Other routers running some variant of OpenWrt on them by default were designed by companies unrelated to the project. They most likely used OpenWrt because it was convenient to them. Their intentions weren't usually the same as the OpenWrt team's (repairability, easy to unbrick, etc.). Not that there is anything wrong with that. I like GL.Inet routers.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I fail to see how a single port GbE LAN would suffice when other devices got more than that.

[–] 486@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I would prefer more LAN ports as well, but how does that relate to what I said? I never said they intended to build or should build a device that fits all use-cases.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago

They’re puzzled - as am I - on why such a glaring spec failure was chosen by the OpenWRT team.