3 ms·

I'm currently using Mikrotik happily for AP and router needs, but considering switching to a Ubnt setup for ease of management that does not depend on Windows/W

I'm currently using Mikrotik happily for AP and router needs, but considering switching to a Ubnt setup for ease of management that does not depend on Windows/Wine and without having to write my own configuration management tooling. As central management is somewhat lacking. What are your considerations for not choosing Ubnt for routing?

ISO-morphism 8y ago
I'm not GP, but what drove me towards MT and away from Ubnt was Ubiquiti's history of violating the GPL [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9331512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9331512
- lmz 8y ago
  Is the Mikrotik any better in this regard? Has anyone taken them up on the offer of a GPL source code CD?
  - garaetjjte 8y ago
    It seems they comply https://github.com/robimarko/routeros-GPL https://github.com/robimarko/routeros-GPL
sandGorgon 8y ago
the mikrotik cli is wonderful. you can script it all out. the UI is a little complicated, but oh well. quick question - why do you need windows/wine for mikrotik ? we use the cli commands through the web console. in fact we dont have windows in the office. granted you may be doing something more advanced than us, but curious to know.
- aequitas 8y ago
  I mostly manage my device setups with CLI/webfig. Sometimes winbox in wine as it is a little more reliable in mac-telnet then 'non-official' clients. But I long for some centralised configuration management. Even on small networks. Its just nice to come back to a complete overview instead of spread out configuration and out-of-date documentation for stuff you did months back for a friend or family. I don't know if Ubnt will fill this need, but what I've been hearing about it should.
throwaway9d0291 8y ago
I'm not the OP but I moved from UBNT to Mikrotik for two reasons: - When it comes to SFP, UBNT's wired gear is unreliable. See https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeRouter/EdgeRouter-X-SFP-leaking-MAC-addresses/td-p/1884107 https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeRouter/EdgeRouter-X-SFP-le... for an example. - My only experience with UBNT's support was exceptionally poor. When I ran into the above issue, I was using a third party SFP module and support stonewalled me, saying I had to buy one of their modules. They wouldn't loan me one or guarantee a refund if the module didn't resolve the issue. Unsurprisingly, buying their module didn't help at all (though they finally let me RMA the equipment). Mikrotik's gear has been solid for me. Zero problems whatsoever.
frankzinger 8y ago
Windows? The MT RouterOS web interface works very well in both Chromium and Firefox on Linux for me.
- aequitas 8y ago
  The web interface works fine for me on macOs, as well as the CLI. But it's far from centralised configuration management. Sometimes you want to tinker, but sometimes you just want to deploy something (at friends/family) that works and when you return to it in a few months, to continue where you left off without going through every device's configuration or the documentation that is obvious not there as those side projects often don't allow you to 'allocate' time for that.

ISO-morphism 8y ago

I'm not GP, but what drove me towards MT and away from Ubnt was Ubiquiti's history of violating the GPL [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9331512 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9331512

lmz 8y ago
Is the Mikrotik any better in this regard? Has anyone taken them up on the offer of a GPL source code CD?
- garaetjjte 8y ago
  It seems they comply https://github.com/robimarko/routeros-GPL https://github.com/robimarko/routeros-GPL

sandGorgon 8y ago

the mikrotik cli is wonderful. you can script it all out. the UI is a little complicated, but oh well. quick question - why do you need windows/wine for mikrotik ? we use the cli commands through the web console. in fact we dont have windows in the office. granted you may be doing something more advanced than us, but curious to know.

aequitas 8y ago
I mostly manage my device setups with CLI/webfig. Sometimes winbox in wine as it is a little more reliable in mac-telnet then 'non-official' clients. But I long for some centralised configuration management. Even on small networks. Its just nice to come back to a complete overview instead of spread out configuration and out-of-date documentation for stuff you did months back for a friend or family. I don't know if Ubnt will fill this need, but what I've been hearing about it should.

throwaway9d0291 8y ago

I'm not the OP but I moved from UBNT to Mikrotik for two reasons: - When it comes to SFP, UBNT's wired gear is unreliable. See https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeRouter/EdgeRouter-X-SFP-leaking-MAC-addresses/td-p/1884107 https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeRouter/EdgeRouter-X-SFP-le... for an example. - My only experience with UBNT's support was exceptionally poor. When I ran into the above issue, I was using a third party SFP module and support stonewalled me, saying I had to buy one of their modules. They wouldn't loan me one or guarantee a refund if the module didn't resolve the issue. Unsurprisingly, buying their module didn't help at all (though they finally let me RMA the equipment). Mikrotik's gear has been solid for me. Zero problems whatsoever.

frankzinger 8y ago

Windows? The MT RouterOS web interface works very well in both Chromium and Firefox on Linux for me.

aequitas 8y ago
The web interface works fine for me on macOs, as well as the CLI. But it's far from centralised configuration management. Sometimes you want to tinker, but sometimes you just want to deploy something (at friends/family) that works and when you return to it in a few months, to continue where you left off without going through every device's configuration or the documentation that is obvious not there as those side projects often don't allow you to 'allocate' time for that.