6 ms·

If they're selling it at cost, ~$100 is not so unrealistic. It's similar in specs to the GL-MT3000 from GL.iNet which retails for $109, albeit without some of t

If they're selling it at cost, ~$100 is not so unrealistic. It's similar in specs to the GL-MT3000 from GL.iNet which retails for $109, albeit without some of the price-increasing niceties like NVME, redundant recovery flash, or built-in usb-to-serial converters: https://www.gl-inet.com/products/gl-mt3000/ https://www.gl-inet.com/products/gl-mt3000/

anonymousiam 3y ago
G.iNet is wholly based upon OpenWRT. They get the benefit of the free software and can undersell because they don't need to support it. I know I'm oversimplifying, but it's at least partially true. I'm a big fan of OpenWRT. I switched to it after running pfSense for a lot of years. Anyone can donate to the project here: https://openwrt.org/donate https://openwrt.org/donate
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  > I'm a big fan of OpenWRT. I switched to it after running pfSense for a lot of years. Anyone can donate to the project here: https://openwrt.org/donate https://openwrt.org/donate Would you care to go into why you chose it over pf/Opn Sense? Considering that you have to reinstall so it's not automatic, what makes it enough better to make the change worth your while? I'm currently running OpnSense for my personal routing and firewalling needs, and considered OpenWRT a few weeks ago (for linux driver support, but that's another story). In the end, I changed my nic and kept opnsense.
  - anonymousiam 3y ago
    Sure thing. I don't want to make any unfounded accusations, but I observed some unstable behavior on my pfSense installations. It wasn't clear if it had been hacked, or if it was just buggy, but it seemed more like a hack to me. Because it's installed as a proprietary blob from a "trusted" source, I couldn't do much troubleshooting. This was shortly after the opnSense mockery, which reduced my confidence in the professionalism of Netgate. https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/ssk8zj/til_in_2017_pfsense_netgate_had_to_hand_over/ https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/ssk8zj/til_in_2017... Also, while exploring other options, I found that OpenWRT provided much higher bandwidth on the same processor/memory footprint. I was able to reduce the VM CPU and memory allocations after switching. Finally, there were a number of features I needed that pfSense just did not support. One was IGMP snooping, another was IPv6 using a provider tunnel.
- poorman 3y ago
  I have tried two G.iNet devices. One completely stopped turning on, and the other the specs were so low it could barely keep up.
- pseudosavant 3y ago
  I've been using OpenWRT forever (WRT54G era) and only buy devices that can run OpenWRT. GL.iNet is my go-to out-of-the-box OpenWRT recommendation for others looking for a router. Their UI is a lot easier to use than LuCI for most things. I had a RPi-based Wireguard VPN setup to a family member's house, but I switched it out with a GL.iNet because their UI for managing Wireguard devices is so much easier. Especially since I can access it using their Goodcloud management portal from anywhere. I hope OpenWRT pulls off having their own device. That would definitely be an upgrade from GL.iNet. But compared to getting a completely non-open firmware like every other GL.iNet competitor, even their versions of OpenWRT are a major step up. There are a few of their devices that have upstream support in OpenWRT. But it is like buying any other device for running stock OpenWRT in that regard - you have to do your homework to make sure you get something compatible. I still have OpenWRT running on a RPi4 'router' and 3 TP-Link routers as APs on my network. But still wish I could get GL.iNet's Wireguard management in Luci...
- nickysielicki 3y ago
  Fully agree, I debated editing my comment to recommend against purchasing it. I bought the aforementioned device after hearing that GL.iNet sells their devices with very minimally modified OpenWRT and that a stock image is freely available, and only after going to set it up did I learn that they no longer publish things like their uboot and kernel trees, and that the stock openwrt image for the device was community contributed. It's very frustrating and I regret purchasing from them. That being said, a huge portion of the consumer-oriented router brands are based on openwrt/buildroot today, so they're far from the only group guilty of benefitting from openwrt without contributing things back.
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
    https://github.com/gl-inet/uboot-source-for_mtk https://github.com/gl-inet/uboot-source-for_mtk https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.2/targets/mediatek/filogic/openwrt-23.05.2-mediatek-filogic-glinet_gl-mt3000-initramfs-kernel.bin https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.2/targets/media... https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.2/targets/mediatek/filogic/openwrt-23.05.2-mediatek-filogic-glinet_gl-mt3000-squashfs-sysupgrade.bin https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.2/targets/media... https://forum.openwrt.org/t/trouble-flashing-vanilla-openwrt-on-gl-inet-gl-mt3000-beryl-ax/180415 https://forum.openwrt.org/t/trouble-flashing-vanilla-openwrt... gee_one December 12, 2023, 2:36am 4 I just got one of these. It is certainly supported! I am now running my own homebrewed build of openwrt 23.05.2 I updated the gl-inet firmware to the latest 4.4.6, and then flashed vanilla openwrt 23.05.2 through the luci web interface. I played around with the uboot flasher which takes an img file. I haven't played around enough with it yet to unpack the images to see if they are different formats or not. It sounds like you are doing the right things. I guess check the hashes to make sure the files are intact? I haven't tested other versions or snapshots. cameroncc December 12, 2023, 4:07am 5 Did you just use the sysupgrade image from the firmware selector? How long did it take to fully flash? gee_one December 12, 2023, 5:30am 6 Yes, for the vanilla firmware, I used the sysupgrade version from the firmware selector, 23.05.2. I don't remember how long it took, but it wasn't very long. I think about 5 mins or less. I had a serial console as well, so it was easy to see that some activity was going on. cameroncc December 15, 2023, 4:13am 11 Well, I just reflashed the GL.iNet image from uboot and then flashed the OpenWrt sysupgrade image from luci again just like before so I could try to ssh and read dmesg before messing with UART and it just... worked... no idea why
- smashed 3y ago
  They are not running stock openwrt and openwrt devs refer to their firmwares as "frankenwrt".
- aorth 3y ago
  A few times a year I go looking for projects to support. It's tricky because I don't want to give money to a project that has tens of thousands of dollars in their account—I'd rather give to some smaller projects or indie devs! See for example the audited financials of projects hosted by the Software in the Public Interest (SPI), where many do have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars already https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/reports/202311/#index4h3 https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/reports/202311/#index4h3 I would totally buy this device if they make it happen. My current router is about four years old and runs OpenWRT.
- ahepp 3y ago
  > G.iNet is wholly based upon OpenWRT. They get the benefit of the free software and can undersell because they don't need to support it. I know I'm oversimplifying, but it's at least partially true. Are they complying with the license terms? I guess I don't understand why it would be considered a negative for them to build a product based on OpenWRT.
  - anonymousiam 3y ago
    It's not a big negative from the consumer point of view. I've purchased some (3) and supported other (6) Gl.iNet products and they've been okay. Several times I have run into issues where the routers have effectively bricked the ability to update the firmware image, while continuing to operate with the outdated and insecure image still running. I've successfully un-bricked a few of them, but that can be a tricky task and takes a while. They do seem to be complying with the license terms, and the free portions of the software can be downloaded from the Gl.iNet website. Most of the negatives have been covered in other comments here.
- zekica 3y ago
  As a small contributor to OpenWrt, I don't like the whole: release one version of their proprietary fork of OpenWrt and then just do security fixes on top of that. If they really want to focus on hardware and base everything on top of OpenWrt, it would be easier for them to upstream as much as possible and let the community handle updates. Even donating would be less expensive. It would be somewhat of a win-win situation IMO.

anonymousiam 3y ago

G.iNet is wholly based upon OpenWRT. They get the benefit of the free software and can undersell because they don't need to support it. I know I'm oversimplifying, but it's at least partially true. I'm a big fan of OpenWRT. I switched to it after running pfSense for a lot of years. Anyone can donate to the project here: https://openwrt.org/donate https://openwrt.org/donate

vladvasiliu 3y ago
> I'm a big fan of OpenWRT. I switched to it after running pfSense for a lot of years. Anyone can donate to the project here: https://openwrt.org/donate https://openwrt.org/donate Would you care to go into why you chose it over pf/Opn Sense? Considering that you have to reinstall so it's not automatic, what makes it enough better to make the change worth your while? I'm currently running OpnSense for my personal routing and firewalling needs, and considered OpenWRT a few weeks ago (for linux driver support, but that's another story). In the end, I changed my nic and kept opnsense.
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  Sure thing. I don't want to make any unfounded accusations, but I observed some unstable behavior on my pfSense installations. It wasn't clear if it had been hacked, or if it was just buggy, but it seemed more like a hack to me. Because it's installed as a proprietary blob from a "trusted" source, I couldn't do much troubleshooting. This was shortly after the opnSense mockery, which reduced my confidence in the professionalism of Netgate. https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/ssk8zj/til_in_2017_pfsense_netgate_had_to_hand_over/ https://www.reddit.com/r/homelab/comments/ssk8zj/til_in_2017... Also, while exploring other options, I found that OpenWRT provided much higher bandwidth on the same processor/memory footprint. I was able to reduce the VM CPU and memory allocations after switching. Finally, there were a number of features I needed that pfSense just did not support. One was IGMP snooping, another was IPv6 using a provider tunnel.
poorman 3y ago
I have tried two G.iNet devices. One completely stopped turning on, and the other the specs were so low it could barely keep up.
pseudosavant 3y ago
I've been using OpenWRT forever (WRT54G era) and only buy devices that can run OpenWRT. GL.iNet is my go-to out-of-the-box OpenWRT recommendation for others looking for a router. Their UI is a lot easier to use than LuCI for most things. I had a RPi-based Wireguard VPN setup to a family member's house, but I switched it out with a GL.iNet because their UI for managing Wireguard devices is so much easier. Especially since I can access it using their Goodcloud management portal from anywhere. I hope OpenWRT pulls off having their own device. That would definitely be an upgrade from GL.iNet. But compared to getting a completely non-open firmware like every other GL.iNet competitor, even their versions of OpenWRT are a major step up. There are a few of their devices that have upstream support in OpenWRT. But it is like buying any other device for running stock OpenWRT in that regard - you have to do your homework to make sure you get something compatible. I still have OpenWRT running on a RPi4 'router' and 3 TP-Link routers as APs on my network. But still wish I could get GL.iNet's Wireguard management in Luci...
nickysielicki 3y ago
Fully agree, I debated editing my comment to recommend against purchasing it. I bought the aforementioned device after hearing that GL.iNet sells their devices with very minimally modified OpenWRT and that a stock image is freely available, and only after going to set it up did I learn that they no longer publish things like their uboot and kernel trees, and that the stock openwrt image for the device was community contributed. It's very frustrating and I regret purchasing from them. That being said, a huge portion of the consumer-oriented router brands are based on openwrt/buildroot today, so they're far from the only group guilty of benefitting from openwrt without contributing things back.
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  https://github.com/gl-inet/uboot-source-for_mtk https://github.com/gl-inet/uboot-source-for_mtk https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.2/targets/mediatek/filogic/openwrt-23.05.2-mediatek-filogic-glinet_gl-mt3000-initramfs-kernel.bin https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.2/targets/media... https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.2/targets/mediatek/filogic/openwrt-23.05.2-mediatek-filogic-glinet_gl-mt3000-squashfs-sysupgrade.bin https://downloads.openwrt.org/releases/23.05.2/targets/media... https://forum.openwrt.org/t/trouble-flashing-vanilla-openwrt-on-gl-inet-gl-mt3000-beryl-ax/180415 https://forum.openwrt.org/t/trouble-flashing-vanilla-openwrt... gee_one December 12, 2023, 2:36am 4 I just got one of these. It is certainly supported! I am now running my own homebrewed build of openwrt 23.05.2 I updated the gl-inet firmware to the latest 4.4.6, and then flashed vanilla openwrt 23.05.2 through the luci web interface. I played around with the uboot flasher which takes an img file. I haven't played around enough with it yet to unpack the images to see if they are different formats or not. It sounds like you are doing the right things. I guess check the hashes to make sure the files are intact? I haven't tested other versions or snapshots. cameroncc December 12, 2023, 4:07am 5 Did you just use the sysupgrade image from the firmware selector? How long did it take to fully flash? gee_one December 12, 2023, 5:30am 6 Yes, for the vanilla firmware, I used the sysupgrade version from the firmware selector, 23.05.2. I don't remember how long it took, but it wasn't very long. I think about 5 mins or less. I had a serial console as well, so it was easy to see that some activity was going on. cameroncc December 15, 2023, 4:13am 11 Well, I just reflashed the GL.iNet image from uboot and then flashed the OpenWrt sysupgrade image from luci again just like before so I could try to ssh and read dmesg before messing with UART and it just... worked... no idea why
smashed 3y ago
They are not running stock openwrt and openwrt devs refer to their firmwares as "frankenwrt".
aorth 3y ago
A few times a year I go looking for projects to support. It's tricky because I don't want to give money to a project that has tens of thousands of dollars in their account—I'd rather give to some smaller projects or indie devs! See for example the audited financials of projects hosted by the Software in the Public Interest (SPI), where many do have tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars already https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/reports/202311/#index4h3 https://www.spi-inc.org/treasurer/reports/202311/#index4h3 I would totally buy this device if they make it happen. My current router is about four years old and runs OpenWRT.
ahepp 3y ago
> G.iNet is wholly based upon OpenWRT. They get the benefit of the free software and can undersell because they don't need to support it. I know I'm oversimplifying, but it's at least partially true. Are they complying with the license terms? I guess I don't understand why it would be considered a negative for them to build a product based on OpenWRT.
- anonymousiam 3y ago
  It's not a big negative from the consumer point of view. I've purchased some (3) and supported other (6) Gl.iNet products and they've been okay. Several times I have run into issues where the routers have effectively bricked the ability to update the firmware image, while continuing to operate with the outdated and insecure image still running. I've successfully un-bricked a few of them, but that can be a tricky task and takes a while. They do seem to be complying with the license terms, and the free portions of the software can be downloaded from the Gl.iNet website. Most of the negatives have been covered in other comments here.
zekica 3y ago
As a small contributor to OpenWrt, I don't like the whole: release one version of their proprietary fork of OpenWrt and then just do security fixes on top of that. If they really want to focus on hardware and base everything on top of OpenWrt, it would be easier for them to upstream as much as possible and let the community handle updates. Even donating would be less expensive. It would be somewhat of a win-win situation IMO.