Jump to content

Talk:OpenWrt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial release

[edit]

"0 December 2002" really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.83.244 (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sveasoft counterclaim

[edit]

The article originally had a link here indicating that Sveasoft claimed "that OpenWRT was illegally distributing software copyrighted by Sveasoft and Broadcom under the GPL". However, that citation makes no such claim. It only says that these packages (most or all of which were not written by Sveasoft and therefore not copyrighted by them) are released under terms different from the GPL or LGPL. As an example, libpcap is released under the terms of the BSD license if I am not mistaken. I believe the person who added this information initially was in error and I have marked the information with the fact tag to indicate a dispute. If no reliable citation can be found within a week (and if no significant disputes are raised here), I will remove the information about Sveasoft's counterclaim. --Yamla 17:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been cited appropriately. Thanks, Stereo!  :) --Yamla 15:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do sveasoft really have any claim? The original linksys firmware is GPL open source, Sveasoft's firmware is a modified version of the original Linksys firmware, which is also under GPL. modern versions of OpenWrt contain no original code and were basically linux distros to themselves built from the ground up, much like an LFS distro. They're not even based on sveasoft or linksys source. linux distros have BSD licensed packages all the time and BSD occasionally has something under the GPL like GCC.--KX36 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Portal:Free software, OpenWrt is currently the selected article

[edit]

Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was PaX. Gronky 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The selected article has moved on and is now DragonFly BSD. Gronky 17:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Openwrt-logo.png

[edit]

Image:Openwrt-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is OpenWrt really “GNU/Linux”?

[edit]

I believe it's misleading to call OpenWrt GNU/Linux; it uses the µClibc library and busybox environment. On my little box, it seems the only GNU packages installed are libgcc and GNU nano. For reference, there are 212 references to “Linux” in the OpenWrt wiki, but only 16 references to “GNU/Linux”, so calling OpenWrt a “Linux distribution” seems consistent with the nomenclature of the project itself.

Personally, I find the entire GNU/Linux controversy somewhat silly, but I believe the arguments for prepending “GNU” aren't relevant to this particular instance.

DanChr 10:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are quite right. I've fixed the article. -- Jon Dowland 10:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ACK; the GNU/Linux controversy is silly, and especially OpenWrt uses software which is not written by the GNU project, e.g. uClibc instead of GNU C Library, BusyBox instead of GNU binutils, etc. Yet, OpenWrt Buildroot relies heavily on GNU software, e.g. the GNU build system or the GNU Compiler Collection. Just FYI ;-). ScotXW (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

differentiation between features

[edit]

it would be useful to differentiate between features included in real WRT firmware and this ddWrt linux distribution, if only to help people choosing to switch or not. I understand that the features may be found out on official pages of these software, but it would be nice to see what improvements has openWRT done in contrast to original firmware. 178.41.54.147 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about "features" is for sissies. This article should rather give some insights on OpenWrt Buildroot, procd, ubus, netifd, about the numerous OpenWrt patches that have been accepted upstream, about other projects and companies adopting OpenWrt Buildroot, etc. ScotXW (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is stopping your from expanding the article! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia's main audience isn't made of people spitting out bits and bytes. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does it do!?

[edit]

Someone please write a better 5-line intro about what the software actually does, or is targeted to do. Electron9 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenWrt is a project by volunteers. It has developed OpenWrt Buildroot and maintains patches. Applying the patches to existing software with the help of OpenWrt Buildroot, should produce an operating system that runs, e.g. on your NAT-router. ScotXW (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Version Layout

[edit]
 I have been working on a Linux Users Group resource page and need some
conformity of all the Wiki Linux versions and distributions. Debian has an
excellent template and I have made an RSS reader to pluck version data from
the wiki page. Would be nice if I could get all of them to follow this method
and my page could keep up to date with all the latest versions.  
RSS source path
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&feed=rss&action=history     
RSS Template.
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Template:Latest_stable_software_release/Debian&action=edit  
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusfactor (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feature section too wordy?

[edit]

Should the Feature section be simplified to be more general? Perhaps something like:

  • Open source
  • Free
  • Community driven development
  • Advanced network routing
    • VLANs
    • NAT
    • Port forwarding
    • Bridging
  • Wireless networking
    • Multiple SSIDs
    • Personal and Enterprise RADIUS security support
    • Wireless client/bridge support
  • Stateful Firewall
  • VPN
    • Server or Client
    • OpenVPN
    • PPTP
  • File share server
    • NFS
    • Samba
    • FTP
    • SFTP
  • Web server
  • SSH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbeede (talk • contribs) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits and graph addition

[edit]

Just for reference, here's a copy&paste of my post from User talk:ScotXW, together with my original signature, regarding revision 576841584 and later performed reverts. -- Dsimic (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before going into details, please be aware that I do love Linux a lot, but I do also realize its weak points. :) Also, I highly respect the graphs you're creating — making such nice things requires a lot of time and effort.
Going back to your edits to the OpenWrt article, the first strange thing is your changing of the infobox's content... Could you, please, explain the edits and removals within the infobox? Sorry, but to me they don't make a lot of sense.
Regarding the File:Linux kernel ubiquity.svg graph, it's indeed a nice one. Though, it depicts a general-purpose Linux system, while OpenWrt is an embedded solution. Having keyboards, mice, touch UIs or CAD/CAM software just makes a lot of confusion to someone reading first about how OpenWrt is great for embedded solutions etc. Also, caption under the picture is totally disconnected from the content of graph itself — again, the caption talks about embedded systems, while we have DJ mixing software above on the graph. If you agree, that's totally disconnected from what OpenWrt article is talking about.
While Linux is a truly versatile thing, it unfortunately makes little sense to show that on a page discussing an embedded solution — if you agree. If anyone wants to learn more about the Linux kernel, he'll go to the Linux article and start from there. He won't learn more about the greatness of Linux by having such a graph on the OpenWrt page — most readers will be confused instead.
On the other hand, if we had a graph that was tailored especially to depicting how OpenWrt works, that would be great! For example, having a high-level overview of how OpenWrt interacts with various parts of an average Wi-Fi access point, down to the LEDs and SD card mods, would be a great thing. It would be enlightening, and not confusing like what we currently have there.
Also, you noted that OpenWrt is based on the Linux kernel, so we need such a general-purpose graph there... Well, OpenWrt is also based on the Von Neumann architecture and binary numbers, but we're not emphasizing those within the OpenWrt article, are we? :)
Thoughts? -- Dsimic (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just restored content of the infobox. -- Dsimic (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed the confusing graph / image. Original editor (ScotXW) isn't providing any comments, and he is also removing the relevant discussion from his own talk page — without any feedback provided. -- Dsimic (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is the OpenWrt-Project. It develops and provides OpenWrt Buildroot and a set of patches, with which other developers, the main target, and end-users, chiefly geeks, can cross-compile an operating system to be flashed onto their NAT-router. This OS is a Linux kernel-based OS. It combines the Linux kernel with other FOSS components, like BusyBox, Dnsmasq, et al. to obtain a complete OS. My diagram, file:File:Linux kernel ubiquity.svg, on the ubiquity of the Linux kernel, is showing exactly that: various types of hardware devices, among which embedded ones, the Linux kernel, and a huge pool of software. The diagram does not have to be linked in the OpenWrt article, and I certainly do not insist that it is, but it is certainly not wrong or not matching the article! In the contrary. ScotXW (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let's adopt it here as well! :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Installed base

[edit]

Is there any information on approximately how many users of OpenWRT are there? 128.197.128.231 (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. But there are adopters, that are maybe worth mentioning, like e.g. Freifunk or ODMs who use OpenWrt Buildroot instead of the SKDs delivered by the Chip manufacturers, etc. ScotXW (talk) 13:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardware incompatibilities

[edit]

The section heading seems to indicate something more than what it is. The section would be better called Hardware requirements Moxoed (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Well, "Hardware incompatibilities" still seems like a better choice to me, as the section deals specifically with the incompatibilities between various hardware variants and software versions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOSS Friendly

[edit]

OpenWrt has had a fair share of hardware/software discovery in the past without help from the hardware manufactures but there are some manufactures that are more FOSS friendly, especially SOC manufactures are in focus [1] However, there are differences in how cooperative thes manufactures are. As an indication of which manufactures are actively FOSS friendly it could be interesting to have such a section in relation to OpenWrt[2] Moxoed (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OlUxeS57E
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lantiq#OpenWrt

History

[edit]

One should consider a revision of the history with respect to this referance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-OlUxeS57E Moxoed (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Unfortunately, YouTube videos, in general, aren't considered to be reliable sources. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New minor release (15.05.1)

[edit]

https://forum.openwrt.org/viewtopic.php?id=63415 Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LEDE remerger

[edit]

One editor from Croatia has been repeated blanking my edits about OpenWrt/LEDE remerger stating it is invalid. However based on public sources, the rememger is still ongoing as of August 2017 blocked on asset transferring.

SPI = Software in the Public Interest

--Voidvector (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that LEDE be merged into OpenWRT. The LEDE project is folding back into OpenWRT and it should eventually only be a historical event in the long history of the project, however significant. A redirect should be kept, of course. TheAnarcat (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The re-merger of the two projects has not happend, yet. I don't see a need to rush this here either. We'll see than, if this really is just a minor event, as you predict. It's also the nature of forks that they build on great achievements from their ancestors. LEDEs achievemnt is certainly visible in their active release schedule during the first 18 months. --Aeroid (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No,or Not now may be a better answer. Now LEDE is still a separate project and it has not merge back, so the wiki pages should also be separate. When LEDE project folds back to OpenWRT and becomes history, we can merge the wiki page at that time. --ShootSniper (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Even once it merges back in, the LEDE's history is still notable enough to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.95.190 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the projects have merged, and so should the wiki pages. 203.176.96.250 (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per OP's rationale, and the project merger is done now. The LEDE article will never move beyond stub class, and it's best to merge it, and leave a redirect. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 22:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:OpenWrt&oldid=1205274932"