4 ms·

Wasn't the BPI-R3 also designed for OpenWRT?

yellowapple 2y ago
So was the recent Linksys WRT series. The product description on Amazon (which Linksys presumably provided) explicitly advertises the WRT3200ACM as "[o]pen source ready with OpenWrt and DD WRT for complete flexibility and customization of networking functions, or to optimize your router for specific use cases". Likewise for the WRT1900AC: "For advanced users who want to customize their firmware, the WRT1900AC stays true to its lineage by offering an Open WRT compatible firmware with Open Source ready capabilities that allow advanced users to expand the capabilities of the Router.". The headline's (and article's) claim of the OpenWRT One being the "first router designed specifically for OpenWRT" is misleading, at best.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  > The headline's (and article's) claim of the OpenWRT One being the "first router designed specifically for OpenWRT" is misleading, at best. This is the first “official” OpenWrt first-party developed and supported router. It also is intended to be the initial “blessed by OpenWrt devs” hardware configuration that will hopefully lead to further devices in the future. It’s also intended to help drive awareness and interest in the platform, with a known-good hardware and software platform, help build brand loyalty, and raise money for development of OpenWrt for the One and all other compatible devices. It’s something the community and the project maintainers have wanted to do for many years now. You can read more about the discussion leading up to this on the OpenWrt mailing list and forum. https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2024-January/042018.html https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2024-Janua... https://forum.openwrt.org/t/openwrt-one-celebrating-20-years-of-openwrt/183684 https://forum.openwrt.org/t/openwrt-one-celebrating-20-years... https://docs.banana-pi.org/en/OpenWRT-One/BananaPi_OpenWRT-One https://docs.banana-pi.org/en/OpenWRT-One/BananaPi_OpenWRT-O... https://openwrt.org/toh/openwrt/one https://openwrt.org/toh/openwrt/one
  - yellowapple 2y ago
    That's great, but they should actually go with that claim of being the first router OpenWRT designed themselves, instead of incorrectly claiming that their router is the first designed specifically for OpenWRT.
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      I think there's some confusion, but I'll admit that you're not confused about what you want, but you might be about what correctness and/or a reasonable remedy looks like. TFA is a post, a press release really, by Software Freedom Conservancy, of which the OpenWrt project is a member. That said, the post doesn't have a byline, so we can't really point the finger at anyone. I doubt that the OpenWrt project would even characterize the OpenWrt One in the same manner as does the title of the post in TFA. That said, the title is largely correct to my reading, as other devices that precede the One, like the Turris Omnia, for instance, aren't designed specifically for OpenWrt, but rather a derivative, Turris OS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turris_Omnia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turris_Omnia https://www.turris.com/en/products/omnia/ https://www.turris.com/en/products/omnia/ To my knowledge, the OpenWrt One is the first router designed specifically for mainline/stock OpenWrt, which is what it ships with, and any comparable router meeting your definition must also meet these marks. That rules out every Linksys or GL-iNet router ever sold, because they don't ship with stock OpenWrt, regardless of whether or not they run a derivative out of the box, or whether they may be reflashed to run stock OpenWrt, whereas the OpenWrt One disticntly does. I will admit I could be mistaken on this point or any other made herein, and will happily admit my mistake if so, but as it sits, the burden of proof is on the accuser, which would be you in this case. So if OpenWrt One isn't first, who is?
      - yellowapple 2y ago
        > To my knowledge, the OpenWrt One is the first router designed specifically for mainline/stock OpenWrt The issue is that there never really was (and arguably still ain't) such a thing as "mainline/stock OpenWrt". From its very conception, OpenWrt has been developed with the expectation that it'd be tailored to specific devices, much like (for example) LineageOS and other custom Android versions are tailored to specific devices. Every device has different flash layouts, different onboard devices (meaning different required drivers and different initial configurations to ensure that the user can access a fresh install at 192.168.1.1 via Ethernet), even different CPU architectures. The closest thing to "mainline/stock OpenWrt" would maybe be builds for generic non-router platforms like QEMU or x86 PCs, but even these are just additional variations on the same "shared base + device-specific customization" development and distribution model. Even the OpenWrt One's builds of OpenWrt are no exception to this; they're still tailored to the specific hardware and quirks of the underlying BananaPi-based hardware, and not some generic "mainline/stock OpenWrt" image. In light of this: > That rules out every Linksys or GL-iNet router ever sold, because they don't ship with stock OpenWrt They don't need to ship with stock OpenWrt to have been designed for OpenWrt, because "stock OpenWrt" ain't really a thing (per above), and because being designed for OpenWrt is a matter of whether or not the manufacturer endorses/supports the user going to openwrt.org and downloading/flashing some actively-maintained image for that particular router - and in the Linksys case at least, that was and is true (and trivially so; you just upload the OpenWrt "factory" image as if it was any other Linksys firmware update - which is unsurprising, since the stock Linksys firmware was itself (allegedly) a customized OpenWrt). And in light of that: > as it sits, the burden of proof is on the accuser, which would be you in this case. That burden of proof has been satisfied, by quoting Linksys' own marketing materials (plus some firsthand corroboration, having ran OpenWrt on the WRT1900AC and WRT3200ACM). I'll admit I'm being a little pedantic here, but nowhere near as much as one would need to be to insist that the OpenWrt One is literally the "first router designed specifically for OpenWrt" despite there clearly having been numerous preceding routers designed specifically for OpenWrt. > So if OpenWrt One isn't first, who is? No idea. I only know that the Linksys WRT line was designed specifically for OpenWrt multiple years before the OpenWrt One existed. Others probably existed before then. That's going by my already-pretty-strict definition of "vendor explicitly advertises OpenWrt compatibility and ships with firmware derived from OpenWrt"; loosening that to one or the other would probably extend that timeline by quite a bit. Technically you could argue that the ol' reliable WRT54G was the first, in a backwards sort of way: OpenWrt (and DD-WRT, and Tomato, and probably others) descend from the open-source parts of the WRT54G's original Linux-based firmware, after all, and the router was clearly designed to work with that firmware. But that's certainly stretching the meaning of "designed for" quite a bit :)
- Namidairo 2y ago
  The sad thing is, the WRT3200ACM has more or less an unmaintained wifi driver, with 802.11w (and thus WPA3) possibly broken within the radio firmware itself. I believe there are other issues regarding regulatory settings being hardcoded in there too.
- shrx 2y ago
  In my experience WRT3200ACM with OpenWrt is garbage. Extremely unstable on OpenWrt, changing various settings to non-default values simply crashed the router. In addition, the physical ethernet ports have incorrect dimensions causing the cables to be stuck in the ports. Pulling them out damages the metal frame around the ports.
  - yellowapple 2y ago
    My experience was the opposite (or at least: not worse than the stock firmware, or than most routers running OpenWRT), but there are a lot of confounding variables that'd affect that difference in experience - namely, a silent hardware revision that broke things for awhile.
    - a96 2y ago
      I don't know if I'm lucky with the hardware revision, but I've had exactly zero problems with mine. I don't think I've ever even seen the stock firmware or at least not for anything other than installing "mainline" openwrt immediately. Has been running since, with steady updates.
newman314 2y ago
I've been eyeing the BPI-R4 as an eventual replacement for my aging ER4.

So was the recent Linksys WRT series. The product description on Amazon (which Linksys presumably provided) explicitly advertises the WRT3200ACM as "[o]pen source ready with OpenWrt and DD WRT for complete flexibility and customization of networking functions, or to optimize your router for specific use cases". Likewise for the WRT1900AC: "For advanced users who want to customize their firmware, the WRT1900AC stays true to its lineage by offering an Open WRT compatible firmware with Open Source ready capabilities that allow advanced users to expand the capabilities of the Router.". The headline's (and article's) claim of the OpenWRT One being the "first router designed specifically for OpenWRT" is misleading, at best.

aspenmayer 2y ago
> The headline's (and article's) claim of the OpenWRT One being the "first router designed specifically for OpenWRT" is misleading, at best. This is the first “official” OpenWrt first-party developed and supported router. It also is intended to be the initial “blessed by OpenWrt devs” hardware configuration that will hopefully lead to further devices in the future. It’s also intended to help drive awareness and interest in the platform, with a known-good hardware and software platform, help build brand loyalty, and raise money for development of OpenWrt for the One and all other compatible devices. It’s something the community and the project maintainers have wanted to do for many years now. You can read more about the discussion leading up to this on the OpenWrt mailing list and forum. https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2024-January/042018.html https://lists.openwrt.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/2024-Janua... https://forum.openwrt.org/t/openwrt-one-celebrating-20-years-of-openwrt/183684 https://forum.openwrt.org/t/openwrt-one-celebrating-20-years... https://docs.banana-pi.org/en/OpenWRT-One/BananaPi_OpenWRT-One https://docs.banana-pi.org/en/OpenWRT-One/BananaPi_OpenWRT-O... https://openwrt.org/toh/openwrt/one https://openwrt.org/toh/openwrt/one
- yellowapple 2y ago
  That's great, but they should actually go with that claim of being the first router OpenWRT designed themselves, instead of incorrectly claiming that their router is the first designed specifically for OpenWRT.
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    I think there's some confusion, but I'll admit that you're not confused about what you want, but you might be about what correctness and/or a reasonable remedy looks like. TFA is a post, a press release really, by Software Freedom Conservancy, of which the OpenWrt project is a member. That said, the post doesn't have a byline, so we can't really point the finger at anyone. I doubt that the OpenWrt project would even characterize the OpenWrt One in the same manner as does the title of the post in TFA. That said, the title is largely correct to my reading, as other devices that precede the One, like the Turris Omnia, for instance, aren't designed specifically for OpenWrt, but rather a derivative, Turris OS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turris_Omnia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turris_Omnia https://www.turris.com/en/products/omnia/ https://www.turris.com/en/products/omnia/ To my knowledge, the OpenWrt One is the first router designed specifically for mainline/stock OpenWrt, which is what it ships with, and any comparable router meeting your definition must also meet these marks. That rules out every Linksys or GL-iNet router ever sold, because they don't ship with stock OpenWrt, regardless of whether or not they run a derivative out of the box, or whether they may be reflashed to run stock OpenWrt, whereas the OpenWrt One disticntly does. I will admit I could be mistaken on this point or any other made herein, and will happily admit my mistake if so, but as it sits, the burden of proof is on the accuser, which would be you in this case. So if OpenWrt One isn't first, who is?
    - yellowapple 2y ago
      > To my knowledge, the OpenWrt One is the first router designed specifically for mainline/stock OpenWrt The issue is that there never really was (and arguably still ain't) such a thing as "mainline/stock OpenWrt". From its very conception, OpenWrt has been developed with the expectation that it'd be tailored to specific devices, much like (for example) LineageOS and other custom Android versions are tailored to specific devices. Every device has different flash layouts, different onboard devices (meaning different required drivers and different initial configurations to ensure that the user can access a fresh install at 192.168.1.1 via Ethernet), even different CPU architectures. The closest thing to "mainline/stock OpenWrt" would maybe be builds for generic non-router platforms like QEMU or x86 PCs, but even these are just additional variations on the same "shared base + device-specific customization" development and distribution model. Even the OpenWrt One's builds of OpenWrt are no exception to this; they're still tailored to the specific hardware and quirks of the underlying BananaPi-based hardware, and not some generic "mainline/stock OpenWrt" image. In light of this: > That rules out every Linksys or GL-iNet router ever sold, because they don't ship with stock OpenWrt They don't need to ship with stock OpenWrt to have been designed for OpenWrt, because "stock OpenWrt" ain't really a thing (per above), and because being designed for OpenWrt is a matter of whether or not the manufacturer endorses/supports the user going to openwrt.org and downloading/flashing some actively-maintained image for that particular router - and in the Linksys case at least, that was and is true (and trivially so; you just upload the OpenWrt "factory" image as if it was any other Linksys firmware update - which is unsurprising, since the stock Linksys firmware was itself (allegedly) a customized OpenWrt). And in light of that: > as it sits, the burden of proof is on the accuser, which would be you in this case. That burden of proof has been satisfied, by quoting Linksys' own marketing materials (plus some firsthand corroboration, having ran OpenWrt on the WRT1900AC and WRT3200ACM). I'll admit I'm being a little pedantic here, but nowhere near as much as one would need to be to insist that the OpenWrt One is literally the "first router designed specifically for OpenWrt" despite there clearly having been numerous preceding routers designed specifically for OpenWrt. > So if OpenWrt One isn't first, who is? No idea. I only know that the Linksys WRT line was designed specifically for OpenWrt multiple years before the OpenWrt One existed. Others probably existed before then. That's going by my already-pretty-strict definition of "vendor explicitly advertises OpenWrt compatibility and ships with firmware derived from OpenWrt"; loosening that to one or the other would probably extend that timeline by quite a bit. Technically you could argue that the ol' reliable WRT54G was the first, in a backwards sort of way: OpenWrt (and DD-WRT, and Tomato, and probably others) descend from the open-source parts of the WRT54G's original Linux-based firmware, after all, and the router was clearly designed to work with that firmware. But that's certainly stretching the meaning of "designed for" quite a bit :)
Namidairo 2y ago
The sad thing is, the WRT3200ACM has more or less an unmaintained wifi driver, with 802.11w (and thus WPA3) possibly broken within the radio firmware itself. I believe there are other issues regarding regulatory settings being hardcoded in there too.
shrx 2y ago
In my experience WRT3200ACM with OpenWrt is garbage. Extremely unstable on OpenWrt, changing various settings to non-default values simply crashed the router. In addition, the physical ethernet ports have incorrect dimensions causing the cables to be stuck in the ports. Pulling them out damages the metal frame around the ports.
- yellowapple 2y ago
  My experience was the opposite (or at least: not worse than the stock firmware, or than most routers running OpenWRT), but there are a lot of confounding variables that'd affect that difference in experience - namely, a silent hardware revision that broke things for awhile.
  - a96 2y ago
    I don't know if I'm lucky with the hardware revision, but I've had exactly zero problems with mine. I don't think I've ever even seen the stock firmware or at least not for anything other than installing "mainline" openwrt immediately. Has been running since, with steady updates.

newman314 2y ago

I've been eyeing the BPI-R4 as an eventual replacement for my aging ER4.