Linksys WRT54G drops Linux

avorobiev writes "WiFi Planet is running a story on all the advantages of Linux-based firmware for the Linksys WRT54G router. Little do they know that as of v.5 of the router Linksys dropped Linux and switched to VxWorks. And yes, they crippled the hardware (halved the RAM) so that third-party firmware can not be installed anymore."

Comments

Repoll

[ElNerdoJorge]

Time to revote on the poll.

Re:Repoll

[Anonymous Coward]

I had in plan to buy a bunch of them for a project next year.
Now I am looking again for something usable (hackable to run my own code).

Understandable

[Kawahee]

Although it might not be too popular an idea, it's logical considering that Linksys doesn't want their $60 dollar router to be a $600 dollar one (Article: "The story of the Linksys Wireless-G Router (model WRT54G) and how you can turn a $60 router into a $600 router is a little bit CSI and a little bit Freaks & Geeks.") so that people are forced to buy their more expensive products.

If I'm right, I don't know where the article got "It's also the story of how the open source movement can produce a win-win scenario for both consumers and commercial vendors", because I haven't seen too many commercial vendors 'win' from allowing people with enough expertise to convert their routers to the next level and lose them money.

Just my two cents.

Re:Understandable

[Eivind]

Depends -- Linksys could have gone the other direction and started delivering the more feature-rich OS-firmware by default (or as an option). This would allow them to sell what you call "a $600 router" for $60.

They are not the only router-manufacturer. It is offcourse true that Linksys would rather you buy an expensive router from then than a cheap one. But on the other hand it's also true they would rather you buy a cheap router from then than an expensive one from their competition.

Re:Understandable

[benjamindees]

Of course Linux was a win for Linksys. It's just that they were bought out by Cisco.

Linksys was in the hardware business, so Open Source was good for them. Cisco is in the "enterprise pixie dust" business, so Open Source is bad for them.

Overall, though, Open Source is good for users, which is all that really matters.

Re:Understandable

[alienw]

I don't think it's purposefully crippled. Nobody is going to buy a Linksys instead of a Cisco router; the reliability difference is obvious even for a home user. It's probably more the case of saving money. If VxWorks can run with half the RAM and half the Flash, that's considerable savings.

Not to mention, they don't have to deal with hacking Linux to work on their hardware, they can have an OS company deal with that. Sometimes, rolling your own just doesn't make much business sense.

Re:Understandable

[Eivind]

Works both ways. Sure, you can have a company deal with the software. They won't do it for free though, and this is a very low-cost low-margin router.

Besides, I'm not that surprised if the Linux-firmware is adopted to also run on the half-ram version over the next few months, they'll have to sacrifice some functionality, but it's certainly not impossible: I've made Linux-routers that boot and run of a single 1.4MB floppy.

Re:Understandable

[Tune]

The story of [...] how you can turn a $60 router into a $600 router [...]

Or rather: The story of how you can gain market share by freeloading on a movement that lifts your $60 dollar hardware to a $600 level.

I mean: maybe the $600 hardware wouldn't be worth $600 in the first place if it weren't developed in a proprieatary world. I don't suppose they loose money on WRT54G items, its just that they've discovered a way to maximize company-wide profits by cashing more on hardware that supports GPL-licensed, thus cashing on the software itself. (Note that the old WRT54G hardware appears to remain available, but rebranded as WRT54GL, most probably at a higher price.)

--
The path of least resistence is steady deterioration: without constant effort/energy keeping information free, it becomes not free, as thermodynamics clearly states

Re:Understandable

[DrSkwid]

You do know that Cisco bought out Linksys?

Re:Understandable

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There is a problem of support, a lot of people screwed up their routers and Linksys had been replacing. If they can halve their support costs, using a proprietery firmware could save them money.

From the feature standpoint, the upgraded firmware is very nice, but the hardware isn't all that reliable, and thus not a total replacement for a commercial grade router or a PC with Linux.

Re:Understandable

[Eivind]

I never said it was clear-cut. All I said is there are arguments both ways.

I kinda doubt the alternative firmware as such would lead to more support-requests. It would when people go about installing it themselves (and occasionally messing it up in the process offcourse) but I doubt it would if it came preinstalled like the normal firmware.

After all the normal firmware was linux too, up until recently. Changing one linux-firmware for another that is similar, except it has had bugs fixed and features added shouldn't really increase support-costs. If anything the fixed bugs should reduce it.

Re:Understandable

[Anonymous Coward]

If that is the case then someone will just develop a free hardware router that is open source, market it and sell it for $60 and it will include $600 features.

Instead of complaining about what they should do - try it for yourself and see how difficult it can be to make a profit with something that is free. Once you perfect it someone else will just take it and compete with you with a product you put all the work into.

Re:Understandable

[Tune]

As pointed out in other posts, Linksys - being a hardware company - was perfectly happy with the FOSS community improving functionality of their hardware. The decision to switch to crippled wh & closed source sw has less to do with being able to make a profit out of hw that supports free software and more to do with Cisco buying Linksys.

On the comparison of free hardware vs. free software (I guess you mean as in beer?). Design and maintenance cost money. Thats the same for both soft and hardware (though FOSS is a pretty good solution to harness software costs). But - obviously - production & distribution of hardware costs money (since you need raw materials) whereas copying software costs nil, especially if customers have their own distribution channel.

Now explain why total costs of hardware + software should be intrincically higher if customers prefer to NOT use bundled software?

Finally, on competition: Why wouldn't you be able to compete with another hardware company when you already have a headstart? Linksys never spent a lot of money on software in the first place.

Re:Understandable

[ivan256]

Linksys is owned by Cisco, and people are starting to realize it. That means in business settings, where there used to be only Cisco wireless gear, there are lots of WRT54Gs sitting around now. I'd find it hard to believe that this change isn't at least slightly motivated by the high-end Cisco side of the business wanting that market share back.

When you say:

they would rather you buy a cheap router from then than an expensive one from their competition

you've got to remember that their competition with the high priced gear, at least when it comes to business sales, is themselves.

Re:Understandable

[indifferent children]

More importantly, Linksys didn't sell a $600 router, so they didn't lose any money when you made your Linksys router more powerful. Cisco does sell expensive routers (probably none quite as cheap as $600), so a re-flashed Linksys potentially costs them a lot of money.

Re:Understandable

[alienw]

The people that market VxWorks are not idiots, and they can figure out the price point that Linksys is willing to pay. It also gives Linksys more flexibility if they decide to switch to less expensive system-on-a-chip devices; finally, their other routers already use VxWorks or something similar, so it would make their code less fragmented.

Re:Understandable

[jhoger]

Maybe Cisco's marketing team is that dumb, who knows, but does anyone really believe that Cisco's target market is wavering on the edge between a high end Cisco router and an unwarranted, unsupported, WRT54G running custom open source software?

If that market really existed they could just as well run an old PC with two network cards in it. It would be more flexible and probably faster.

0 * ($600 - $70) = 0

-- John.

Re:Understandable

[Eil]

Sounds rather like the business model of consumer-level laser printers. A year ago, I bought a Konica Minolta printer for $500. The only major difference between it and the $800 model was that the more expensive one had a few more features. (Postscript, PDF, and a few other things.) Everything else was completely the same. That's $300 whole extra dollars for nothing more than some different bytes in the firmware.

So what? There is still a Linux flavoured product.

[Narkov]

Great article research. Linksys will/have released a Linux version and labled the packaging "Open Source". Here's the FCC information on the Linux device.

How do I tell on the retail box if it's v5?

[artifex2004]

I'm going out to buy either a 54G or a 54GS this week, specifically so I can install something that is capable of bandwidth shaping certain IPs in my network, and so obviously I need to make sure I have the right firmware and hardware spec.

Re:How do I tell on the retail box if it's v5?

[michaelredux]

I'm going out to buy either a 54G or a 54GS this week, specifically so I can install something that is capable of bandwidth shaping certain IPs in my network, and so obviously I need to make sure I have the right firmware and hardware spec.

The first 4 digits in the serial number (look on the box or the underside of the router) represent the hardware revision:
CDF0 = WRT54G v1.0
CDF1 = WRT54G v1.0
CDF2 = WRT54G v1.1
CDF3 = WRT54G v1.1
CDF5 = WRT54G v2.0
CDF7 = WRT54G v2.2
CDF8 = WRT54G v3.0
CDF9 = WRT54G v3.1
CDFA = WRT54G v4.0
CDFB = WRT54G v5.0

CGN0 = WRT54GS v1.0
CGN1 = WRT54GS v1.0
CGN2 = WRT54GS v1.1
CGN3 = WRT54GS v2.0
CGN4 = WRT54GS v2.1
CGN5 = WRT54GS v3.0
CGN6 = WRT54GS v4.0

(Source: http://wrt-wiki.bsr-clan.de/index.php?title=DD-WRT _Docu_(EN))

As far as I know, the GS version still runs Linux, although it is typically $20 more.

I used the information above to find the last WRT54G v4.0 on the shelf, mixed in with the newer v.5's at my local Office Depot.

Re:How do I tell on the retail box if it's v5?

[greed]

...and if you're in Canada, Staples has a $25 in-store rebate and $15 on-line rebate for the WRT54GS model right now, ending Nov 15 I believe.

WRT54GL

[spiralscratch]

Linksys is also coming out with the WRT54GL, which appears to simply be the WRT54G v4 hardware relabeled.

The Italian Linksys site shows it (bring babelfish), but the US site does not yet, except for their GPL Code Center.

More in this forum thread.

Re:WRT54GL

[tbuskey]

So we're going to see 2 pieces of hardware: One OSS, one propriary. It will be interesting to see what the marketplace reveals.

I hope the OSS version outsells the VxWorks version. Or the profits for Linksys are higher. Money talks.

Competition

[adderofaspyre]

There are many manufacturers out there that sell linux enabled routers. Linksys might lose a lot of sales over this move.

Re:Competition

[vcv]

Yeah, I'm sure "a lot" of people are going to care what OS their router is running.

Re:Competition

[adderofaspyre]

Most of the people I know do care. They are usually tech people, and others who have no clue about IT get their advice from rest of us who care.

Re:Competition

[tbuskey]

1) The home user who buys wireless for home doesn't care as long as it works. This is most of the market. This also includes many ISPs (cable companies, DSL providers) that sell a wireless addon for the internet connection.

2) The geek buys one to hack at home. How big is this market?

3) The ISP that uses modified firmware. How many units do they buy?

2 & 3 will be able to buy the WRT54LG.

Re:Competition

[llefler]

Hmmm, I have Netgear, USR, and Linksys wireless routers. I bought the Linksys for OpenWRT. I prefer the Netgear (MR314, now discontinued). And then I have also purchased about 50 WAP11s. And to date the only time I have cared what OS was supported was the single WRT54G that I bought for a special project.

These types of routers are generally for cost conscious SOHOs. If the VxWorks version is cheaper, that's what they will buy. Probably what Linksys should do is market the Vx version to the current market, and then the Linux version to people looking for things like VOIP or QOS support at a higher price. Then they could benefit from some of the work that OpenWRT is doing. But of course they have to be careful not to steal customers from their Cisco products.

Re:Competition

[Sancho]

Although Linksys was the beginning of running non-standard flash on off-the-shelf wireless routers, it is far from the pinnacle.

My money's on the Asus WL-500G Deluxe Why? because although it does not have 8 megs of flash, it has USB ports. Two of them, if I'm not mistaken. With the OpenWRT project, you can actually include the USB mass storage driver and plug a flash device (or a USB hard drive, I suppose) into this thing and have just about all the storage space you could want.

Of course, you can do this with NFS on other routers, but that requires that the network is up and that the other machine is up. This is a simpler, safer solution, particularly if you want access to the filesystem immediately after bootup.

Crippled?

[Urkki]

"And yes, they crippled the hardware (halved the RAM) so that third-party firmware can not be installed anymore."

Uh... Saving on components after replacing the OS with something that doesn't need as much memory is hardly "crippling". Hinting that they should have more RAM than they need is a bit... detached from harsh business reality.

Re:Crippled?

[Kevin Burtch]

Not only that, but back at v2 the RAM (and flash) was doubled.
So all this means is they're back at v1.x RAM levels... which is what all of the externally available images (that I've seen) are made for anyways. They should still work fine, although they may have to find new tricks (bugs) to enable them to upload new firmware to the device.

Re:Crippled?

[mnmn]

I agree. And bravo to Linksys if they replaced Linux just to have a more efficient router.

I've seen people use Linux for crazy things, just because they wanted to use Linux. Plenty of small RTOSes require tiny amounts of ram and flash, less than what already comes on MCUs. For Linux, you need to add ram, flash, all the routes on the circuit board and the design and manufacturing costs.

Linux is awesome, but for some things eCos fits better. For other things freeRTOS or micrium fits even better. Its crazy to use Linux 2.6.10 on a $10 watch, making it a $50 watch, just so you can advertise that its a $50 watch.

If I wanted to run linux on my firewall, I'll just use an old machine (which I do), and NOT BUY linksys at all. I'll buy linksys for a very simple and cheap router (which theyre trying to be).

Re:Crippled?

[geschild]

It is stupid if it loses Linksys sales to competitors that have models with better specs for almost the same price or only marginally more expensive. It's not as if there's anyone 'in the know' that buy Linksys if they can buy an Asus wl-500g deluxe with USB 2.0 ports and the same flash/ram as the higher end linksys models (plus easier use and setup, even with OpenWRT.)

It would only be a good move if they cut down on the price so much that they push other vendors out of the market or into the same cost (and functionality) cutting. Otherwise it might be a way to kill Linksys off so there's one less competitor to Cisco's core bussiness. It would be the first company to use this kind of underhanded tactic.

Re:Crippled?

[dimss]

> Hinting that they should have more RAM than they need is a bit... detached from harsh business reality.

Not "they need". _I_ need more RAM.

Re:Crippled?

[jpostel]

Agreed. Even marginally savvy consumers that buy wireless gear at Best Buy can tell when the packaging indicates that the $80 product has ports that can have a printer hookup and the $70 product does not. They simply say, "Cool!" and buy the $80 one.

In the low end consumer market, it's all about profit margins and volume. If Changing to VxWorks and halving the RAM saves Linksys/Cisco a buck per router, then they won't even hesitate. I think the trick here is whether that buck will mean a drop in price to increase volume (good for consumers) or simply higher profit margins (good for Cisco stockholders).

Re:Crippled?

[Urkki]

It is stupid if it loses Linksys sales to competitors that have models with better specs for almost the same price or only marginally more expensive.

Indeed. But the question is, how many of their customers actually even realize that their router has some RAM and an operating system inside the physical device? If they sell 5 million units at $5 profit margin per unit, it's $1000000 better than selling 6 million units at $4 profit margin.

And in this specific case I do believe that the increased profit far outweighs any lost sales. Of course I'm not an economist, so that's just a gut feeling.

Re:Crippled?

[benjamindees]

One thing to think about though is that, without a supported OS, most hardware is essentially disposable. The only reason you can use your "old machine" as a firewall is that it is OS-neutral. Devices which rely on specialized operating systems don't get reused. They get thrown away.

Also, you didn't mention the difference in power requirements between small custom hardware and reused PCs. A couple of years of electric bills will pay for the entire box. And the power saved will pay for the difference in hardware requirements several times over.

There is definitely a place for customized hardware running a generic OS like Linux. And there is incentive for both manufacturers and users to produce and demand such devices.

Old!

[Daxster]

:(
http://wrt54g.net/articles.php?id=49. October 18th.

Re:So what? There is still a Linux flavoured produ

[Daxster]

But..the article is about Linksys dropping Linux support on their WRT54G routers. The product you linked to is a NAS unit.

Bad news

[dimss]

My co-worker has bought new Linksys. He wanted to install OpenWRT... Bad luck. It was ver.5 running VxWorks.

Linksys running OpenWRT is nearly-perfect (and very inexpensive) universal CPE equipment for medium-sized ISP. Some ISPs in Latvia use hundreds of them. Here is one: http://nx.mpe.lv/

Re:So what? There is still a Linux flavoured produ

[Narkov]

They AREN'T dropping support for Linux. They are releasing a separate model with Linux support and making the mainstream one a cheaper design. The product I linked to is a Wireless router that can, with the addition of the USB port, act as a NAS unit.

Too bad...

[Craig Maloney]

I've been recommending people get the Linksys routers specifically for the Linux firmware. Guess I'll have to recommend another brand. Any suggestions?

Re:Too bad...

[mikiN]

Regarding OpenWRT, take your pick: OpenWRT TableOfHardware. I'm quite sure there are other projects out there also.

Re:Too bad...

[xPertCodert]

Asus WL-500G Deluxe is perfect piece of hardware with 2 USB 2.0 ports And upcoming WL-700 will have an IDE port integrated on-boards for a perfect server

When Will Business Learn...

[TheZorch]

When will software/hardware businesses learn that if they make products that support multiple platforms, without skimping on the features, that they'll increase their profitability.

Bad economics

[Kevin Burtch]

OK, so they don't want a teeensy portion (.01%?) of their customer base upgrading their product without profiting from it, so instead they pay license fees for _every_ one they sell?

Sounds like they have a problem with math... where I come from this is called "penny-wise, and pound-foolish" (no wait, that's from the UK, isn't it? ;) ).

The main reason I bought this model (I have an old v2) is the fact that it runs Linux and is "hackable".
If the new ones can't be, I won't be buying one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way.

So... now instead of them "losing" theoretical money (that we wouldn't have spent anyways), they are paying more for their firmware, and losing more customers.

Good move lynksys!

Re:Bad economics

[alienw]

How do you know they are paying more for the firmware now? I would think they did this to save money. Maybe they license VxWorks for a flat fee that is less than what it costs to have a staff of engineers working on constantly porting the Linux kernel to different chips, and then doing QA on that firmware. That costs a lot of money, too. Not to mention, if a memory chip costs $5 and VxWorks costs $3 per unit, it makes sense to use VxWorks and eliminate one memory chip.

Re:Bad economics

[snopes]

Tornado licenses (vxWorks IDE) are extremely expensive. vxWorks doesn't just come ready to run. It requires a fair amount of work to maintain and in fact everything does in the case of moving target hardware that you describe. Then there's the royalties.

Here's why this likely makes sense for Linksys. The most certainly had a pre-existing relationship with WindRiver and likewise they would have the in-house knowledge for using their tech. As far as I'm aware you can always shoehorn vxWorks into a smaller space than any trimmed down Linux. So, obviously the cost savings in hardware reduction offset the cost increase of software. And I'm sure they get a sweet deal on the software since WindRiver is getting a win over linux.

That said, WindRiver is also in the Linux business. I guess there's a likelyhood all around that Linksys and WindRiver are tight and that would make the economics tough to fully grok.

Re:Bad economics

[Anonymous Coward]

What a load of uninformed crap!

It is MUCH more likely Linksys doesn't pay any royalties at all.

Sure it's cute that they built a CPE unit that was hackable - but that isn't really a business...

Re:Bad economics

[Kevin Burtch]

How do you know they are paying more for the firmware now?

Because you can't get cheaper than "free", and anything else costs more.

Maybe they license VxWorks for a flat fee that is less than what it costs to have a staff of engineers working on constantly porting the Linux kernel to different chips, and then doing QA on that firmware.

• No need to port, it's already been ported. The microcontrollers in these devices are MIPS based, which has been supported for many years. This is why there are so many firmwares available... it's relatively easy to build the entire system by cross-compiling.

• Modifications to a specific configuration (chips external to the microcontroller) are required even with VxWorks. If you make something custom, just because it's commercial doesn't mean it's automatically supported any more than if I were to solder together my own ADC board and expect ms-windows to support it.

• QA is required no matter what you use. VxWorks isn't an instant wireless router, it's only an OS... you have to add EVERYTHING else, just as you do with Linux. Actually, you might even have to add more to VxWorks... does it have an equivalent of iptables/netfilter?

That costs a lot of money, too. Not to mention, if a memory chip costs $5 and VxWorks costs $3 per unit, it makes sense to use VxWorks and eliminate one memory chip.

This is possibly a valid argument, although as I stated in another posting, the pre-v2 models had half of the RAM of the v2 and newer (so the same as the v5 model). From what I understand, they aren't using the RAM anyways.
Just look at all of the extras you can add in (on top of the existing software) in the various firmwares... even a full Asterisk voicemail system, and it all fits in the tiny memory available in the v1.x models. If they were starved for RAM, that would not be possible.

I've worked in Corporate America long enough to know that decisions like these are nearly always purely political, made by those with zero technical expertise. Likely someone with an anti-open-source bent got hired or promoted, and in standard Corporate America fashion, decided to make major changes for the sake of making changes - to make himself "a name". I've seen it too many times to count in many companies... happens every time a "new boss" is brought in. It must be written down in some "how to be a successful manager" book or something. ;-)
I'd bet that the argument was made in the manner indicated in the article summary "People are hacking our hardware! Look at how much money we could be making if we could force people who want more features to by something that costs 10x as much! We're losing money!". This, as I pointed out, completely ignores the fact that someone who can afford a $60 device won't necessarily be able to afford a $600 device (nor would they want to pay that much if they could).

As I stated before, they're just going to drive this very tiny portion of their customer base to the competition (others already posted a link to a hardware compatibility list for one of the firmwares, openwrt, I believe).

Re:Bad economics

[alienw]

Because you can't get cheaper than "free", and anything else costs more.

Licensing fees are not the only cost. I would imagine the staff costs are greater than the licensing costs.

No need to port, it's already been ported. The microcontrollers in these devices are MIPS based, which has been supported for many years.

BS. Yeah, you don't have to port it to the architecture, but you do have to port it to each particular chip. These routers use ASICs for this stuff, they come out with new ones like every 6 months. It does involve quite a bit of work to do this, and probably quite a bit of money too. Not to mention, companies like Broadcom don't like to deal with GPL'd code; they like their drivers to stay proprietary.

I'm sure you have to do some of this with VxWorks also, but doing it on something that's supported and well-documented makes a lot more sense than hacking largely undocumented Linux code. Not to mention, there are lots of engineers familiar with VxWorks. I doubt you can find very many embedded Linux kernel hackers.

Besides, no other Linksys products use Linux, they all use either VxWorks or something else. I'm sure they would rather have a common codebase and possibly get additional discounts from their suppliers.

Department?

[elliotj]

Why does this story not have a department?

Lots of alternatives!

[PastaAnta]

There are lots of alternatives to the Linksys routers. A detailed list of routers compatible with the OpenWrt firmware can be found here.

I have just bought a cheap ASUS WL-500g Deluxe router with two USB 2.0 ports, which can be used with storage devices, printers, webcams etc. With USB ports the possibilities are endless! Linksys seem to have been a bit slow to realise this anyway.

--

Re:Lots of alternatives!

[51mon]

> There are lots of alternatives to the Linksys routers.

I'd caution people, some of the WRT45Gs idea of "supported" may not be everyones idea of 'ease of use'.

However I'm fairly sure my last try failed because I was a trying stuff a bit beyond what was officially supported, thanks to some random patches, and I hadn't any experience of the hardware except for breaking it with a firmware upload, and finding the support people had no idea what "the original firmware" might mean as a phrase (how can people write that much source code and not type their email address in it somewhere ?!).

Halving the memory isn't an issue, WRT54G already support 2MB Flash, 8MB RAM from other routers and earlier model, it is presumably getting the code bootstrapped in the first place that creates the challenge.

I'd have thought there must be a bulk market for the Linksys WRT54G, with modified firmware, I'm surprised Linksys isn't chasing it. My Linksys router is running Linux, but it is running the stuff Linksys shipped which is adequate for the moment, I don't think I want to try figuring out ADSL support in Linux on non-x86 hardware this week.

Re:Lots of alternatives!

[commanderfoxtrot]

I also have a WL-500g Asus router- it's fantastic. Very reliable, with full Linux and USB.

I have disks and printers/scanners plugged in to mine.

Re:Understandable?

[tbuskey]

It's probably more the case of saving money. If VxWorks can run with half the RAM and half the Flash, that's considerable savings.

Certainly makes sense to me. I wonder how much they save on the hardware to make up for the cost of redeveloping the firmware.

Not to mention, they don't have to deal with hacking Linux to work on their hardware, they can have an OS company deal with that. Sometimes, rolling your own just doesn't make much business sense.

I'm not sure replacing an existing, working, Linux firmware with a VxWorks firmware that you have to develop. Maybe VxWorks has done some of the development, but you're still going to need to do much yourself.

Porting from embedded Linux to VxWorks is probably similar to porting Linux to Windows. Some things will just work, some things will need to change because the methods/model for doing things are different.

Of course, there's the issue with how are the linux firmwares competing with the higher end stuff from Cisco, the parent company. From other posts here, it looks like Linksys will continue selling the Linux version as WRT54LG so that's probably not as much as a factor.

Unsustainable business model

[MobyDisk]

What Linksys is doing is not sustaininable. Principle: You can't hold back technology (without a patent, and even then, not forever).

Imagine that I found a way to make normal steel 10x stronger by doing something easy that anyone can do. It would effectively turn $60/unit steel into $600/unit steel. Now, the company is having trouble selling their $600 steel. So they modify their $60 steel so that the chemical no longer works.

The company has won, right?

No - another company will start selling the old $60 steel + the chemical treatment for $300. Win-win for consumers and companies. Technology has advanced. Ready for this folks? This system is called "The free market" (oohs and ahhs from the crowd).

If the only difference between a $60 router and a $600 router is firmware, then you can Linksys change their router so that the firmware update won't work. That is fine. But someone else will make a router where the firmware update does work. And they will sell that for more. They can't make a technological advantage just vanish by not selling it.

Re:Unsustainable business model

[squiggleslash]

They're releasing a WRT54GL, which supports Linux. Additionally all the current WRT54GS models support Linux. The most recent has half the ram and flash of previous versions, just like the barebones WRT54G (but as the earlier GSes had a lot of both, it still has enough to run Linux), which suggests Linksys are just cutting costs rather than involved in a conspiracy to deny their customers a flexible, programmable, router device.

Re:Unsustainable business model

[jhoger]

The difference is not between a $600 and a $60 router. Market for a higher end Cisco and a DIY GNU/Linux/Linksys are completely disjoint.

If this was a marketing decision, rather than a cost reduction I'd say the differences is between a $60 router and a $90 router where the $30 is some software-only feature like router-to-router VPN. That $30 goes straight to contribution margin since it doesn't increase COGS at all. Of course the channel is going to take a chunk of that, but you get the picture. Elective software features are 100% gravy.

The problem for Linksys obviously is that with open software running on the unit, the user doesn't need to spend any extra for the additional software-only features.

Of course, if there is demand for DIY routers, then someone is going to fill that gap. If the market is lucrative and Linksys (Cisco) is smart (they are) they will position products for both markets. But I'd warrant that their strategies for both markets would be totally different.

-- John.

With SpeedBooster?

[Kevster]

I'm also wondering, is the more expensive GS worth it? Are there any downsides to getting the GS version?

Re:With SpeedBooster?

[Sancho]

The best G model you can buy (2.0 rev. XH) has 4megs flash and might have 32megs of ram enabled, though some of them only enable 16. All GS models except the new 4.0 have 8megs flash and 32megs of ram.

It looks like the 4.0 GS is "crippled" in the same way as the 5.0 G boxes. Half of each type of memory and it looks like it may use the new OS, too.

Reference:
http://wiki.openwrt.org/TableOfHardware

Re:With SpeedBooster?

[artifex2004]

Odd. That table you showed seems to indicate the 4.0 GS is still Linux-capable. But you both agree on it having half the memory, so I should get a 3.0, instead.

Thanks for the help!

Re:With SpeedBooster?

[artifex2004]

Looking around at different tables, I'm seeing that SpeedBooster is done entirely in software on the GS. In fact, according to this page, a couple of the firmwares you can get should do SpeedBooster on the G model, too. I'm going to go for the DD-WRT firmware.

Re:With SpeedBooster?

[Sancho]

Oops, you got me there. But yeah, definitely prefer the expanded memory on the earlier units :)

Huh?

[youknowmewell]

I wasn't aware that this particular router had this ability. I just bought one of these last week, version 4. What is so special about this router?

Re:Huh?

[stinerman]

It runs Linux so there are many programs that can extend its functionality, often to the point of that on a $500 router. I run the dd-wrt firmware, but there are many others available if you google.

I would be more inclined to buy their router if ..

[Skapare]

I would be more inclined to buy their router if they made it an open platform that would also let me run programs I write (using an external cross platform development kit consisting entirely of free open source software such as gcc, etc). I think a lot of people would end up preferring such models of things (routers, switches, modems, radios, TV sets, DVD players, etc) if they could program on it, or run downloaded free open source programs that other people write and make available online. I'd even pay extra to get extra memory capacity on such models to have the room to run more processes. Make it Linux or BSD based and I'm happy. Obviously Linksys is blind to our tiny little market of hackers.

Of course the RIAA and MPAA would have a fit if it involved things that could open their content. But hey, let's do things to help keep their lawyers busy.

To be fair...

[HunterZ]

It's possible that Linksys did this because their engineers found that they could cut the flash and RAM sizes in half by using VxWorks instead of Linux (yes, with the added advantage of not having to release the source under the GPL any more).

With that said, I unknowingly bought a v5 from my local Fry's and I'm very frustrated. I had a chat with Linksys support last night that wasn't very helpful - see here: http://forum.bsr-clan.de/ftopic3550.html

Unfortunately the latest WRT54GS has half the flash and RAM capacity of previous GS versions, but fortunately that is how much previous WRT54G models had (so I'll still be able to at least run the standard build of DD-WRT). I'm really tempted to just get my money back and order an Asus WL-500g Deluxe from newegg, but they're currently out of stock.

The WRT54GL doesn't seem to be available in the U.S. yet. Linksys claimed that Amazon.com has it, but they list it as unavailable; I was then referred to a wholesaler (whom I have not yet contacted). I'd rather pay an extra $10 to get a router (WRT54GSv4) I can use now than wait a couple months to get one with the same capabilities (Amazon.com lists the WRT54GL at just under $70, which is halfway between Fry's prices for the G and GS).

Nice!

[artifex2004]

Thanks. That site has a lot of cool material on it. I think I'm going with DD-WRT, when I get the router.
I'm pretty sure I'll get the GS, for the extra memory. From working with Ciscos, I know you never can have too much memory, especially not with such a low differential in price.

*BSD

[paugq]

I just cannot understand why Linksys used Linux in WRT54G instead of BSD. Taking a BSD (NetBSD being the obvious choice here) would have been a lot better for them, as they wouldn't have had to release their (Linux firmware) code, so no open firmwares would exist, so they wouldn't have to move to VxWorks, so they wouldn't be paying VxWorks licenses now.

Does this nonsense strike you as odd?

[suitepotato]

They were bought by Cisco. That one word alone sums up everything since the buyout and will sum up everything about Scientific Atlanta equipment when that finishes. Cisco is headed for irrellevance sooner or later. They know it. Their product line is overpriced and underperforming and overly headachy. They know it. They aren't the darlings of the Internet leading every trend in the physical sector. They *don't* know it.

I still remember every single telecom magazine breathlessly reporting every supposed advance being made by Cisco and how it would be deployed to bring me interactive gaming and video on demand over ethernet over dsl and I'd have it at speeds of omigawdthatstoofast per second any day now.

And then I watched the carriers and so on not go with their stuff.

That last part is important about Cisco not knowing "it". They don't get the industry or the Internet or a lot of other things and they aren't the world-conquering studs the industry rags still like to make them seem like. So when I saw the Cisco buyout, all I thought was, so much for the firmware ever being fixed. Now it will be CYA and obfuscate over there and the product will be forty-six firmware iterations along from now before anyone even looks at repairing one bug from right now which will still be there then, in the future.

Given my daily calls at work, I don't seem to be too far off on that.