4 ms·

I'm less concerned with their jurisdiction and company profile than their absent software/firmware maintenance. I have a bunch of their different models and in

by 3np 2y ago

I'm less concerned with their jurisdiction and company profile than their absent software/firmware maintenance. I have a bunch of their different models and in practice most of them are unusable today (based on ancient upstream with missing important updates; their sources are a huge mess with scarce and out-of-date docs so have fun resolving that yourself; device dtb/driver require unavailable patches; IIRC their stock vendor firmware phones out and they seem to be pushing towards a centrally managed cloud platform I wouldnt trust) It really is a shame as on paper and out-of-box-right-after launch their devices seem great but after spending too many days failing to get working builds for in particular the Mudi/E750 while realizing that stock firmware is unsafe in untrusted networks, I've given up on them until I see some drastic change in maintenance culture. The collaboration with OpenWrt might make the "Two" an exception, I guess, if the OpenWrt people are involved and demanding enough.

simoncion 2y ago
You should be aware of how much collaboration the OpenWRT folks have with -say- Ubiquiti Networks. [0] And yet, OpenWRT runs fine on the UAP-AC-LITE and -LR. I'd wager there's nearly zero collaboration between the overwhelming majority of the hardware manufacturers that create hardware that OpenWRT runs on and the OpenWRT folks. Your concern is entirely unwarranted and -if I might be a little uncharitable- seems to come from a position of ignorance (whether actual or feigned, I cannot tell). [0] Less than zero.
- 3np 2y ago
  What does that have to do with anything? I'm speaking about experience of deploying existing gl.inet devices, marketed as "fully open source" with OpenWrt being front-and-center in marketing, as well as being promoted on the OpenWrt wiki. That someone from the community has made OpenWrt run fine on Ubiquiti gear has nothing to do with my comment and is not indicative of anything (if anything perhaps supporting the notion that glinet should be able to do better). > Your concern is entirely unwarranted and -if I might be a little uncharitable- seems to come from a position of ignorance (whether actual or feigned, I cannot tell). Yeah, that's quite uncharitable. Did you read the last line of the comment you replied to? Speaking of ignorance... How many new embedded devices have you personally ported OpenWrt (or any Linux dist for that matter) to? How many glinet devices do you have experience deploying self-compiled builds to? How much time have you spent digging through their sources and patches?
  - YakBizzarro 2y ago
    In fact I'm quite surprised by this announcement. Gl.inet is famous for claiming that their os is based on openwrt, while it can be some vendor SDK that is based on some decade-old version of openwrt and have little in common today
  - simoncion 2y ago
    > Did you read the last line of the comment you replied to? Yes. I read your entire comment and thought on it for a while before I replied. It's stupid to do otherwise. > That someone from the community has made OpenWrt run fine on Ubiquiti gear has nothing to do with my comment and is not indicative of anything... Yeah, except that it is. Your comment indicated that ongoing effort from the GL folks was relevant to having OpenWRT continue to run on the hardware: > I'm less concerned with their jurisdiction and company profile than their absent software/firmware maintenance. Ubiquiti is famously anti-open-source. They used to be less so with their routers, but always were very, very nasty when it came to their WiFi access points. There's no way in hell they're providing assistance (especially ongoing assistance) to the OpenWRT project.

by 3np 2y ago

simoncion 2y ago

You should be aware of how much collaboration the OpenWRT folks have with -say- Ubiquiti Networks. [0] And yet, OpenWRT runs fine on the UAP-AC-LITE and -LR. I'd wager there's nearly zero collaboration between the overwhelming majority of the hardware manufacturers that create hardware that OpenWRT runs on and the OpenWRT folks. Your concern is entirely unwarranted and -if I might be a little uncharitable- seems to come from a position of ignorance (whether actual or feigned, I cannot tell). [0] Less than zero.

3np 2y ago
What does that have to do with anything? I'm speaking about experience of deploying existing gl.inet devices, marketed as "fully open source" with OpenWrt being front-and-center in marketing, as well as being promoted on the OpenWrt wiki. That someone from the community has made OpenWrt run fine on Ubiquiti gear has nothing to do with my comment and is not indicative of anything (if anything perhaps supporting the notion that glinet should be able to do better). > Your concern is entirely unwarranted and -if I might be a little uncharitable- seems to come from a position of ignorance (whether actual or feigned, I cannot tell). Yeah, that's quite uncharitable. Did you read the last line of the comment you replied to? Speaking of ignorance... How many new embedded devices have you personally ported OpenWrt (or any Linux dist for that matter) to? How many glinet devices do you have experience deploying self-compiled builds to? How much time have you spent digging through their sources and patches?
- YakBizzarro 2y ago
  In fact I'm quite surprised by this announcement. Gl.inet is famous for claiming that their os is based on openwrt, while it can be some vendor SDK that is based on some decade-old version of openwrt and have little in common today
- simoncion 2y ago
  > Did you read the last line of the comment you replied to? Yes. I read your entire comment and thought on it for a while before I replied. It's stupid to do otherwise. > That someone from the community has made OpenWrt run fine on Ubiquiti gear has nothing to do with my comment and is not indicative of anything... Yeah, except that it is. Your comment indicated that ongoing effort from the GL folks was relevant to having OpenWRT continue to run on the hardware: > I'm less concerned with their jurisdiction and company profile than their absent software/firmware maintenance. Ubiquiti is famously anti-open-source. They used to be less so with their routers, but always were very, very nasty when it came to their WiFi access points. There's no way in hell they're providing assistance (especially ongoing assistance) to the OpenWRT project.