3 ms·
hard to parse this statement, since the software itself is doing the lion share of making the router "good" (unless you mean wireless g/n support or something?)
by maximente 8y ago
hard to parse this statement, since the software itself is doing the lion share of making the router "good" (unless you mean wireless g/n support or something?)
i've used this project to put new life into a Buffalo router that's probably 10 years old and runs way cooler and more performant than the original firmware. same with an ASUS router that's probably 6 or 7 years old.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y agoHardware is quite important; wireless standards keep evolving, some people care about how many ethernet ports they have, and system details (CPU, RAM, flash memory) determine performance and features (you lose a lot trying to fit your system in 32MB of flash).
- aaronmdjones 8y agoSurely you mean you lose a lot trying to fit your system in 4MiB of flash, seeing as the stock images will flash to any 8MiB device with plenty of space left for configuration and the odd extra package or seven. My grandmother has a SiteCom WLR-4000 (aka SiteCom WL-351, aka EnGenius ESR9850) and that has a 4MiB flash chip; building OpenWRT for it is a pain, but I can still get a flashable image that does everything I need it to do, including the stock web interface (LuCI), with 100k left for persistent configuration data. It even has WireGuard (kmod-wireguard, luci-app-wireguard, luci-proto-wireguard) on it for a bridge to my router at my home. When it breaks, or if I ever upgrade my WNDR3800, I'll give that to her. But for the time being it's still perfectly serviceable.