Slashdot Mirror


Cisco Rumored To Be Selling Linksys

New submitter drdread66 writes "Cisco seems to be giving up on another technology acquisition. Hot on the heels of a full writedown for shuttering Flip Video, Cisco is now looking at another potentially huge loss from unloading Linksys."

180 comments

  1. Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was a brand dilution problem and confused SME's into assuming that they had the Cisco Enterprise grade equipment when Linksys are just toys.

    1. Re:Good move. by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It wouldn't have been such a problem if they'd kept calling things Linksys, and not put the Cisco Systems logo all over everything. Then releasing all the Linksys kit as Cisco SMB - that was just crazy.

      --
      ... wait, what?
    2. Re:Good move. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, that was never such a problem. Who cares about the badging? The problem was that Cisco tried to make Linksys products - which competed on price value first and foremost - into Cisco products - which compete on threat of failure and job security. Huge difference!

      The problems were:

      * they abandoned the home market through marketing and getting rid of all the products which appealed to home users
      * they increased the prices of the Linksys products - because, well, they're badged Cisco SMB now.
      * they didn't improve the Linksys products, they made most of them worse (the latest SMB routers are completely useless; I'd rather have a PIX501)

      It's not like Cisco has all that great a reputation in the SMB market, either. Fine for enterprise, but people who know SMB know that Cisco is stupid for SMB on so many different levels, the least of which is cost/benefit being so incredibly high vs. pretty much everything else.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    3. Re:Good move. by arielCo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Any manager that buys Linksys branded hardware because "it's made by Cisco" should be fired or demoted, at least given a single stern warning if you're feeling generous.

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    4. Re:Good move. by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is just crap. The first thing that happened when Linksys was bought was that the quality went down the toilet. It happened *immediately* and too quickly for it to be a coinicidence. If there was and "dilution" problem it was because Cisco wanted it to be there.

      Linksys put out one of the first wi-fi routers that could be modified and had real power. The first outdoor wi-fi system I ever put out as a newbie was using WRS hardware. Linksys was a real competitor to Cisco as they were putting out very affordable hardware that wasn't garbage. Small business was using Linksys as an alternative to bloated and hard to use Cisco products.

      I don't recommend any Linksys products these days from basic 5 pt switches on up because Cisco made sure they were crap for their own reasons.

    5. Re:Good move. by Sulphur · · Score: 3, Funny

      It wouldn't have been such a problem if they'd kept calling things Linksys, and not put the Cisco Systems logo all over everything. Then releasing all the Linksys kit as Cisco SMB - that was just crazy.

      A route to disaster?

    6. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't work in IT and am simply an end user, but I can largely agree with this out of my own experience.

      I used to associate Linksys with something that worked, with no frills and a bottom 30% price tag. I just bought a router and would in the past have looked straight at the Linksys ones because it doesn't have to do any tricks. These days however I have no idea what I'm supposed to associate Linksys with.

      Illustrates the value of brand identity.

    7. Re:Good move. by crafty.munchkin · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the saying "no one ever got fired for buying Cisco" hung around after the Linksys acquisition and subsequent badging.

      --
      ... wait, what?
    8. Re:Good move. by lipanitech · · Score: 0

      They spent 500 million for the purchase in 2003 I wonder if they every got there money worth out of the company. I do hope linksys stays around they make good home and small business solutions at a reasonable price.

    9. Re:Good move. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't have been such a problem if they'd kept calling things Linksys, and not put the Cisco Systems logo all over everything. Then releasing all the Linksys kit as Cisco SMB - that was just crazy.

      A route to disaster?

      Try issuing the Windows command "route /print" and see.

    10. Re:Good move. by war4peace · · Score: 1, Informative

      I have a Linksys WRT120N.
      It sucks fat cock. Wireless network fails on a daily basis and on two machines it never reconnects. Once a week, Wireless module goes down completely, I have to reset the router. About twice a month, my wired bandwidth slows to a crawl (10-50 kB/s) and I have to... you know... reset the router. And about every 6-7 weeks, my PPPoE "forgets" credentials, and I have to enter them again, and... you know... reset the router.

      Furthermore, for the last 6 months I was unable to change large parts of router configuration, because every time I click Save, I receive a fat cock-sucking Error 500. For this one, resetting the router doesn't help.

      The message I sent across to everybody I know was and is: Stay Away From Linksys.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    11. Re:Good move. by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since Linksys was actually a home user brand, that problem didn't exist until Cisco came in and started slapping "Cisco" all over the product.

      Brands are targeted at a market for a reason.Linksys pre-acquisition made perfectly serviceable home user grade hardware at a good price. Cisco totally screwed it up.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    12. Re:Good move. by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't have been such a problem if they'd kept calling things Linksys, and not put the Cisco Systems logo all over everything. Then releasing all the Linksys kit as Cisco SMB - that was just crazy.

      A route to disaster?

      and RIP to the Linksys brand.

    13. Re:Good move. by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Informative

      I have a (refurbished) WRT150N, and have bought two others for parents/grandparents. With the stock firmware, they're everything you described. However, with DD-WRT, they've been some of the most reliable devices I've worked with, up to and including Cisco's enterprise hardware. I've had a similar experience with one of their newer models (E2000 or something? I forget the actual number) - ultimate crap with the stock firmware but excellent performance and reliability under DD-WRT.

    14. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with the sibling. I've never heard of a home router working with the stock firmware. You always have to install something else like DD-WRT. (Personally, I like Tomato's UI.)

    15. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linksys put out one of the first wi-fi routers that could be modified and had real power.

      Still running a couple of WRT54Gs. That raises an interesting question, what is the canonical home/SOHO router these days? (Beyond eBay and DD-WRT, that is.)

    16. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a BEFSR41, BEFSR81, and a CIT400 iPhone (not to be confused with the Apple iPhone which shares the same trademark).

      BEFSR41 worked fine, but I needed more ports. BEFSR81 is buggy in the sense that if I remember correctly (been a while since I've logged in), after a few days the pages are like white or blank for accessing the settings. In other words, the BEFSR81 needs a reboot before you can change things after running for a few days.

      I love my CIT400 which I use for Skype. It still works to the day. I've had some minor problems, but I don't know if it was the phone's fault; problems such as my contacts disappearing (I do backups now and I can reload them using the software, not the hardware) and needing to reboot the phone because of connectivity issues (not being able to access contacts).

    17. Re:Good move. by ifrag · · Score: 2

      Linksys pre-acquisition made perfectly serviceable home user grade hardware.

      This was demonstrably false in earlier Linksys "router" hardware. The first "router" I used from Linksys required bi-weekly reboots to function at all. None of the firmware updates improved this, and some releases even made it worse.

      Perhaps the quality has improved in later models, I wasn't willing to give it a second chance.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    18. Re:Good move. by tibit · · Score: 1

      For home use, I think that Apple's Time Capsule is a good bet.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    19. Re:Good move. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I disagree, I think the Cisco SG300 and SG500 series switches are excellent value for what they are. A good quality introduction into managed switches with a decent feature set, and essentially running catos light (okay maybe light light would be better).

      I picked up 2 of them on Amazon a while back (20 port and 10 port), and they are perfect for the small business. The downside (at least from Cisco's standpoint), is that had they not had they not purchased Linksys, and retool the business class products into Cisco branded slightly upgraded small business devices at a much cheaper price point, those same businesses may have actually purchased the lower end Cisco enterprise products (Catalyst etc) at a much higher price point.

      So the move probably cannibalized some of those sales.

      Either way, having used Cisco, Juniper, Extreme, Fore and many more in a past life, I can say that the SG series are at least decent pieces of equipment. However, a caveat is that I never used Linksys business products before Cisco bought them, so I do not know how much better (or potentially worse) they have become outside of the pricing of said devices.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    20. Re:Good move. by Tridus · · Score: 2

      May depend on the model, I had a WRT54G that I could ignore for months at a time, and typically it only needed attention because the ADSL line it was connected to got flaky.

      --
      -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    21. Re:Good move. by colfer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Linksys did not precisely compete on price value. In the realm of stores like Office Dept, Linksys was top end. After Cisco, the packaging and casing got more extreme, comparative prices went up, all the while bargain basement brands went from unreliable to fine. Didn't help that Linksys alienated the tech-savvy segment of the mass market by killing the routers that could easily be converted to open source community firmware.

    22. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have a Linksys WRT120N."

      My sympathies, that's really a piece of shit!

    23. Re:Good move. by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

      A very good move. Our company had a blanket "no Linksys" rule - because everything they made was utter junk. We initially started out buying a fair amount of their smart switches, because the price was so compelling. However they failed so frequently, we actually had to issue an edict that no more Linksys products were allowed to be purchased.

    24. Re:Good move. by Skater · · Score: 4, Interesting

      May depend on the model, I had a WRT54G that I could ignore for months at a time, and typically it only needed attention because the ADSL line it was connected to got flaky.

      Heck, I'm still using a WRT54G (1.1 I think) for my home network that I bought in 2001ish. A couple years back, I updated the firmware to support WPA encryption and it still works perfectly - I never have any problems with it, I don't need to reboot it, it just works. (I should note I use it only as a wireless access point, not a router.) I'm watching prices on a dual-band N with gigabit ethernet router to replace it, but so far I haven't gotten around to it, in part because I hear so much that newer routers aren't as reliable.

    25. Re:Good move. by sribe · · Score: 2

      ...the latest SMB routers are completely useless...

      I suspect that's the core of it. Can't disagree with your other points, but for me this is why my small business will never again attempt to use a Cisco product. Web-base config software that simply did not fucking work, forcing me to try to learn the basics of IOS, and then when I did get it configured (well, I think), it still didn't work right.

    26. Re:Good move. by digitalaudiorock · · Score: 1

      I have a Linksys E1200 router and can verify first hand that it's a POS. Every few weeks it flakes out and some, but not all machines connected to it loose access to the network. It's on the newest firmware, and I even factory reset it and reconfigured everything as a last ditch attempt to address it. I had a bad feeling when when I went to upgrade the firmware and it prompted for which "hardware version" I had...1 or 2. Mine didn't indicate which, and it took a little doing to find it was "version 1". My take on that is that version 1 was the "defective hardware we should have replaced for free". Compete and utter junk. I made the mistake of confusing them with the Linksys of yesteryear...never again.

    27. Re:Good move. by mu51c10rd · · Score: 5, Funny

      A good quality introduction into managed switches

      So...a gateway drug...?

    28. Re:Good move. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      I believe the person you're replying to is talking about their routers, not switches.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    29. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent only underpins what I wanted to say: How sad is it that a model sold before the 2003 Cisco buyout is still the go-to model for reliability? Anyone arguing that it isn't, need only look at the top-rated model on newegg. I'm sure it's undergone minor revision changes since then, But I bet the bulk of the hardware and software remains unchanged since 2003.

    30. Re:Good move. by ifrag · · Score: 1

      May depend on the model, I had a WRT54G

      I'm talking about BEFS... generation hardware, pre-WRT. I think by the time WRT rolled around they finally started to fix some of their garbage.

      --
      Fear is the mind killer.
    31. Re:Good move. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm personally inclined to wonder if the Cisco Linksys acquisition was really an optimistic attempt to kneecap a potential competitor(Linksys certainly didn't have the really classy stuff, like redundant PSUs and such, nor did it have ios-equivalent commands to make your enterprise admins happy; but the capabilities of a relatively feeble ARM/MIPS SoC running linux were getting uncomfortably close to those of Cisco's ~$500-ish branch-office routers, and Linksys was putting out some definitely-adequate-for-the-money not-wholly-unmanaged rack switches and things) that ended up underestimating how quickly the utter crap segment would move toward adequacy.

      Before the market's maturation, there was some genuine shit being sold as consumer network gear(and there still is, if you get unlucky, though it's harder to feel cheated when your $15 allegedly-wireless-N router flakes out after 6 months than it was back when your $80-$100 allegedly-wireless-B router flakes out after 6 months of only actually connecting to your laptop half the time); but the basic strategy of shoving a modestly powerful SoC from one of the major wireless vendors onto a more-or-less reference design PCB and equipping it either with Linux(on the high end) or VXworks(for the real cheap seats) is something that even the nastiest bottom feeders can usually get mostly right. The firmware will usually be terrible; but the nasty bottom feeders also have no real incentive to lock out 3rd-party firmware, which has gotten pretty decent.

      If the consumer/SOHO networking market still looked like it did when Linksys was purchased, the buy might actually have been a good idea: assimilate the company that was getting a little uppity in terms of feature sets for the money, bump the prices on their classier gear, nerf the features on their lower end stuff, and call it a day. Trouble is, outside of the extremely low end(where margins are so tight that you can't even be sure that the wall-wart won't set your house on fire), shoving SoCs in plastic boxes is totally commodified and firmware(while each vendor seems to have a perverse desire to roll their own shitty version, rather than just slapping a lightly branded OpenWRT build on it) has gotten better over time, and still has a marginal cost of $0 to ship the nicest and most featureful build you have available to you. That's just not a place where Cisco can win: Cisco has a high-margin/lots of features market to protect, so they do incur a cost if they start shipping their good firmware on cheap hardware; but 'tenda' or 'trendnet' or any other "Who the hell are they?" outfit has nothing to lose and everything to gain if their firmware is as good as it can possibly be. They don't necessarily have the cash to actually write good firmware, and that firmware won't be running on good hardware; but even bad hardware can be pretty good, and the overall quality of embedded linuxes has gotten significantly better.

    32. Re:Good move. by pedrop357 · · Score: 1

      BEFSX41 or something like that. In the day, Kazaa/Morpheus would crush mine and require a reboot, as would random days throughout the month.

      In 2006, I replaced it with a D-Link DGL-4100 which only needed to be rebooted when I felt like upgrading the firmware or (more irritatingly) when changing certain features. IN 2008, I went to Cisco 1711 router for the experience, and then to an ASA5505.

    33. Re:Good move. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm sure it's undergone minor revision changes since then, But I bet the bulk of the hardware and software remains unchanged since 2003.

      Just a note, for the reference of anybody reading this: The WRT-54/GL is very similar to the wildly popular classic WRT-54G that put the 'WRT' in 'OpenWRT' and 'DD-WRT'. However, the WRT-54G(non L) has gone through something like 5 revisions, and the later ones are more or less entirely different animals in the same box. Less flash, less RAM, vxworks(yeah, like hell it works) based firmware, poor compatibility with anything but the most stripped down 3rd-party firmwares. In fact, the 'L' model was actually a re-release of the older revision designed to cater to the enthusiasts who had been alienated by the later revisions of the 54G.

      If you go shopping, just be sure you know which is which. I don't know how the 54GL holds up against the newer models from non-linksys sources; but anything being sold as a WRT-54G(unless it specifically specifies one of the earlier, better revision numbers) is shit and probably not worth the money.

    34. Re:Good move. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I honestly couldn't be arsed. I am now fishing for a newer router, maybe in January I will get a new one. Asus routers look interesting. We'll see.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    35. Re:Good move. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Hmm... maybe I should try that out. I am however more inclined to buy a new one because every time I look at this current router I have I get goose bumps.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    36. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You might want to put an eye on the TP-Link TL-1043ND which has full wireless N, gigabyte LAN and usb.
      Or his little sister TL-941ND which it's the same without gigabyte LAN and the usb port (but you can open the case and solder it!).
      Both of them can run openWRT, or at least some versions of these routers can (just check openwrt web page).

    37. Re:Good move. by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      But in reality, being able to claim "It's made by Cisco" is the reason they DON'T get fired or demoted.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    38. Re:Good move. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I think it may have been more of an issue, being that Cisco branded it, it was under their Cisco Contracts so any basic purchasing manager would see two items right next to each other with a rather large price difference, and they will go with the cheap one.
      A lot of businesses don't have a good IT staff, or their staff has nothing to do with purchasing decisions. They may say they need a Gigabit router, however when it goes to purchasing they will see the $1000.00 Cisco and the $150.00 LinkSys both a gigabit router. Thus they will make the decision. Not having LinkSys by Cisco is probably a good thing, because it will be easier to say the $1000.00 is actually a lot better than our competitor. Vs. trying to say Our Product line is really good and our other one sucks.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    39. Re:Good move. by v1 · · Score: 2

      airport/time capsule are overkill for most home networks, but not mine. I pound the piss out of my router on a daily basis, every day of the week. Servers, email, web, backups, torrents, and more.

      I had been running an ancient asante but it finally bit the dust, power surge on the WAN jack. So I tried a netgear, a dlink, and a netgear, none of which could run for more than a week without something going wrong with them. Finally bit the bullet and bought an airport extreme.

      Had one problem... my LAN is a very unusual design for multiple internal networks, and requires the router be on a specific IP address or I will have to run around and reconfigure many machines and even some scripts. The airpot doesn't offer a way to specify the IP, it just makes itself one addy below the DHCP start pool.

      BUT, it allows me to export the entire configuration, as XML, where I can edit it with amazingly fine detail, and re-upload it. So, it lacked a convenience, but then pulled a home-run in flexibility. I have never seen another router that lets me edit its config backup. (among those that can export/import configs) At least not with default firmware.

      Anyway, the airport is extremely reliable. I have to reboot the network about once a month anyway, because my switches (netgear) and occasionally my modems start having problems. (I've also had to replace the junk dsl and cable modems provided by my isp with better units)

      Apparently my network makes their ports bleed or something...

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    40. Re:Good move. by timeOday · · Score: 1
      So, what is Cisco to do? Keep cashing in on high-end stuff and just hope and pray that commoditization stops short of their core market? This is how most tech companies die, and often not for lack of trying.

      Microsoft got big by invading from the low end, so they've been paranoid about having that done to them since day 1. And yet it is happening before our eyes, with stagnation in the PC business and Android on mobile devices eating their lunch.

    41. Re:Good move. by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Just a note, for the reference of anybody reading this: The WRT-54/GL is very similar to the wildly popular classic WRT-54G that put the 'WRT' in 'OpenWRT' and 'DD-WRT'. However, the WRT-54G(non L) has gone through something like 5 revisions, and the later ones are more or less entirely different animals in the same box. Less flash, less RAM, vxworks(yeah, like hell it works) based firmware, poor compatibility with anything but the most stripped down 3rd-party firmwares. In fact, the 'L' model was actually a re-release of the older revision designed to cater to the enthusiasts who had been alienated by the later revisions of the 54G.

      You need to know your OSes really.

      VxWorks is a great OS - as long as what you're doing requires hard real time tasks. It comes with a relatively flimsy network stack otherwise (and there are MANY third party companies that do nothing but sell you a TCP/IP stack for such RTOSes).

      The reason the "L" and original WRT-54G were great? Because they ran an OS with a decent network stack - Linux. This was basically a first at the time (and yes, Linksys shipped them without supplying source code initially).

      And yes, the added hardware cost for Linux (flash/RAM) probably cost more than a VxWorks license.

      These days, a lot of routers tend to run Linux, purely because the drivers for the new hardware are practically Linux first and the sweet spot for memory has tended to allow even the larger 2.6 kernels to fit just fine (a lot of high end ones have a whopping 128MB of RAM and 128MB of flash).

    42. Re:Good move. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I don't have a good answer for them(nor is it assured that there even is one.) My point was just that the "Acquire Linksys and gimp their stuff" strategy is only viable if there is some barrier to entry that prevents another Linksys from rising in the first one's place. If there are sufficient barriers to entry, buying a competitor and reconfiguring their product line to protect your market can work. If not, though, the best you can hope for is that you delayed the change you are worried about, by picking off the leader/most competent executor of the trend; and, at worst, you might actually be encouraging it, because now "Get bought by Cisco" looks like a plausible cash-out avenue for any VC thinking of backing a network device company...

      In the very short term, it may well have actually worked. We'd need to have more specific numbers on Cisco's lowish end gear sales in that time period, vs the cost of acquiring Linksys, and the shifts in the fortunes of Linksys' competitors due to the acquisition. Beyond that term, though, it seems very likely that it could not stem the tide. Linksys may have been ahead of their game when Cisco purchased them; but the other players have been improving, and Cisco can't buy them all, or prevent others from rising up(or, if they did want to prevent them, they'd have to go directly to the source, the SoC spinners like Broadcomm, Aetheros, Marvell, and cripple the steady supply of competent-but-boring low-end router boards for random pacific rim OEMs to shove into boxes, and that would involve serious cash and possible antitrust concerns).

      To go with your analogy, Microsoft does have an Android problem(even if Apple is walking away with most of the profits, Android is the one that saturates every mobile niche that Apple doesn't deign to touch and some that it does); but would that make buying, say, HTC, a good idea? Taking out one Android handset vendor might be enough to scuttle the launch of some particular device or set of devices; but there are a number of more or less interchangeable competitors who will fill the gap(especially if you try to cripple and/or raise the price of HTC products in order to reconfigure the mobile market).

      I agree with you that Cisco is right to be concerned about companies nibbling in from the low end, I just don't think that they bring anything to the table to solve that problem. The low end doesn't care about compatibility with Cisco's high end configuration mechanisms and features(at best, they might want them but not be willing to pay, at worst, they are actively afraid of them); but Cisco also has minimal-to-zero capability in delivering any low-end products that might be able to synergize with Cisco network hardware in a useful way. The Flip(also killed) might have increased demand for bandwidth in a vague sense; but that's an ISP bottleneck, not something that would trouble any consumer router except the nastiest 802.11b devices(indeed, notably, the 'Flip Share TV' wireless media extender/streamer specifically didn't run on top of a user-visible IP network at all, it used a proprietary dongle on the host PC to drive the media player box). Their video-conferencing stuff, outside of the 'worth-more-than-your-car' range, is similarly a non-event, and they've never made a compelling case that (again, beyond driving a vague demand for better internet connections) you would somehow be better off with a Cisco router. Their 'Media Hub' product was similarly mediocre compared to every other cheapie NAS on the market, and similarly offered no obvious advantage to Cisco/Linksys users compared to users of other network gear. They just don't seem to have anything to offer on the low end.

      Honestly, unless they have a markedly better plan, they might well be best off to just milk the hell out of the high end for as long as they can and then quit and go sit on their pile of money.

    43. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      120 not supported by DD-WRT.

    44. Re:Good move. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I don't have anything against VxWorks for embedded systems; but on a router a 'relatively flimsy network stack' is a teeny bit of a liability...

      It was also my experience that(not necessarily through the fault of VxWorks per se; but because of the severe RAM cut on the VxWorks models) performance under loads like bittorrent(very high number of simultaneous connections, even if upstream bandwidth kept the overall throughput modest) tended to take a nasty dive earlier than on the models with better specs.

    45. Re:Good move. by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      These days I just go to pfSense and get reliability with feature filled functionality.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    46. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have one of these older ones as well. My wife was complaining the other day because I've had the router longer than I've known her, and we've been married for seven years. I've had to reboot it a few times lately when the wireless went down - looks like it's time to replace the old workhouse.

    47. Re:Good move. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Cisco gear is as much a toy as Linksys gear. Especially once they started taking Linksys product lines and sell them as full-blown Cisco gear (especially the small business gear).

      Cisco simply has brand recognition like Microsoft or Oracle. Their products suck, all technical people know it but managers keep buying it because it's "Enterprise"-grade and they've either locked them in or they've convinced them other stuff won't work as well with existing infrastructure.

      Netgear, HP, Juniper and a host of others are eating Cisco's lunch right now.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    48. Re:Good move. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to count on Linksys for exactly three things: 1) it worked 2) it was affordable and 3) it worked with Linux out of the box. I became loyal to Linksys back in `98 when I bought a Linksys Ethernet card that had Linux drivers on the install diskette -- this was prior to those same drivers being incorporated into the Linux kernel distribution.

      Fast forward a few years, I wanted to buy a wireless card, and I saw the Linksys model. With the Cisco branding, but I thought, okay, so they bought Linksys, surely they kept the same features that I counted on Linksys for. And the answer was "no" on all three counts. Too expensive -- but hey, it'll work, and with Linux -- only it didn't work on Linux at all, and when I eventually found drivers from the chipset maker the card worked but then took a dump on me after less than a year (whereas I'm still using old Linksys ethernet cards for wired networking).

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    49. Re:Good move. by r33per · · Score: 1

      What do you do when that guy is also your Sales Director and the MD's brother?

      I spent 4 years battling with this SD over the "it says Cisco on the front" argument. Audi, Seat, Volkswagen, Skoda, Lamborghini and Bugatti are all part of the same group, but you buy the Skoda Felica based on its own merits (or lack thereof), not because it has strong(ish) associations with the Bugatti Veyron.

    50. Re:Good move. by N!k0N · · Score: 1

      you sound like someone I know ... though I'd be surprised he has a six-digit UID...

    51. Re:Good move. by spazdor · · Score: 2

      There's no better home broadband router these days than pfSense on a Soekris.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    52. Re:Good move. by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      Except it's not dual band, if you realy want to get decent N transfer speeds you need 5Ghz support, even more so if you plan to connect any Apple hardware, since it'll only connect at 300Mb/s on 5Ghz

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    53. Re:Good move. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      These days however I have no idea what I'm supposed to associate Linksys with.

      I associate them now with that stupid "cloud" firmware setup that lets them spy on you as part of the EULA and wont be buying another one of their routers. ...which is a shame because my current router (a Linksys WRT54gv5) is having issues losing power occasionally, and I think a break has developed in the AC adapter cord from playing around with it, a real shame despite some of the router's limitations. In other words, I'm a happy Linksys owner who's looking to this as a reason to upgrade to a new 802.11n router but will be specifically looking for another company's wares now.

      On a related note, my mother will be buying herself her first wireless router in the not-to-distant future because of a Christmas gift I got her. Guess who she's going to ask for advice on routers. Guess who I'm not going to recommend.

      Marketers like to downplay good old fashioned word-of-mouth, especially from geeks. But here's two lost sales.

    54. Re:Good move. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was just checking that out. Great. Garbage can, here it comes.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    55. Re:Good move. by doggo · · Score: 1

      You know, you can probably buy a replacement AC adapter on eBay. I had to for my D-Link router. I got two. My D-Link router & separate WAP are still chugging along after... I lost count, many years.

    56. Re:Good move. by Vancorps · · Score: 1

      Or go with an HP Procurve with web management so easy a caveman can do it combined with a lifetime warranty for less money and more bandwidth.

      Linksys strength was providing a great value with little features, this went away when Cisco bought them and started monkeying with DNS and managing crap from the cloud.

    57. Re:Good move. by v1 · · Score: 1

      why have six when you can have two?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    58. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The newer atoms are pretty nice as well, or the AMD G-series embedded boards. The trick is finding boards with good NICs...

    59. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any 12V 1A power wart should be fine. The "light" ones are switch mode and usually have better regulation.

    60. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright son, open the trunk. What are all these little packets?

    61. Re:Good move. by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      I bought a WRT610N refurbished a few years ago. It was a V1. I found out they made a V2 because the V1's CPU was too slow to run wireless N at full speed, and running DD-WRT on it was even slower. It also ran pretty hot and had internal antennas. It didn't seem to like DD-WRT much but that was probably because it was new and not well supported yet.

      I replaced it with an ASUS (N-16?) which has external antennas and has worked great. Supposedly the ASUS firmware is bad but I wouldn't know because I replaced it immediately (decided to try Tomato).

      Linksys has always been much better with replacement firmware (they didn't used to have static DHCP in their stock firmware). Now other brands are offering better hardware and practically encourage you to replace the firmware. Personally I wouldn't bother with Linksys anymore unless you're putting it somewhere visible and want something that looks pretty.

    62. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, the first one was cheap, but definitely not free!

    63. Re:Good move. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      Probably not just you. IOS is known for, what's the word... being consistently inconsistent? It works almost the same across a wide range of devices, except when it doesn't. Lots of little documented stuff. I've got a friend who's had to make calls in to 2nd and 1st level Cisco support before due to this happening; they're not even well versed on it within Cisco for the low end Enterprise stuff, just forget getting decent support on the SMB crap...

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    64. Re:Good move. by zyzko · · Score: 1

      WRT54G was a nice piece of hardware - in the sense that the early models (and later the GL) had DD-WRT / OpenWRT option, which brought many very nice features to a consumer-priced box. And good for you that you could get yours stable - for me the best feature of custom fw was the nightly reboot feature. After my ADSL was upgraded from 8/1 to 24/2 the box would just choke when using bittorrent after a day or two of use, and my friends have had similar experience with the box. Good if you have a slow internet connection - bad on high-speed connections and especially with torrents and other protocols with many connections.

    65. Re:Good move. by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like two things you could have done to remedy this problem.

      The discovered and known-to-work fixes:

      1) "Overclock" the CPU of the router. They were quite capable of having the CPUs clocked up to 250 Mhz with passive cooling. With active cooling, some users had 300 Mhz or higher. One enterprising individual had his clocked to 500 Mhz with watercooling.

      2) Change your ip-conntrack settings. The default settings were too low, even for non-torrent/slow connection use. I think you needed to update the number to track at minimum 2400, but the higher the connection speed, the more you needed. The optimal for fast lines was 4096 maximum ports, 600s TCP timeout, 120s UDP timeout. http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Router_Slowdown has a good explanation of this.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    66. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a pfSense box with 1294 days, 10:26 uptime. I'm just about to replace it with a 2901. Only for the DMVPN.

    67. Re:Good move. by swalve · · Score: 1

      Using it as a router AND access point upped the processor usage pretty high on those things. Probably causing overheating and locking. It might have been fine in the DSL days of 1 mbit of capacity.

      I replaced mine with a $30 Belkin and it works fine as an access point.

    68. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but you're incorrect. I have a MacBook Pro with a 802.11N wireless card, and a dual-band Buffalo N router running OpenWRT. My MacBook connects at whatever the highest supported channel rate is given the current S/N. It's usually over 100Mb/s, but I don't think I've ever seen it connected at 300Mb/s, even when I'm standing right next to the router. BTW, I am using a 40MHz channel width, not 20MHz.

    69. Re:Good move. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There needs to be a top score of 10 for posts like these.

    70. Re:Good move. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Honestly, unless they have a markedly better plan, they might well be best off to just milk the hell out of the high end for as long as they can and then quit and go sit on their pile of money.

      Except that that never seems to be a viable plan for any publicly-owned corporation: shareholders always want them to grow (or at least, maintain size and return a healthy dividend). So they keep trying to compete, even when they're hopelessly obsolete, and eventually die out, with all the remaining shareholders getting screwed over in the process.

    71. Re:Good move. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I had one of the oldest ones, a BEFSR41, 4-port router (non-wireless); it was supremely reliable. I never had to reboot it that I can recall.

    72. Re:Good move. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I have a Cisco/Linksys E1000, and it's excellent. I never have any problems with it.

      It cost about $10-15 on Ebay, and it runs DD-WRT. When you buy used hardware on Ebay, make sure to get a hardware revision that runs DD-WRT, because not all do.

      Have you tried DD-WRT on your WRT120N?

    73. Re:Good move. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sell it on Ebay. There's always some sucker on there that'll buy whatever you don't want any more.

    74. Re:Good move. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Not supported, so no I haven't. I'll just give it away to someone I hate :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    75. Re:Good move. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Or sell it on Ebay. There's always someone on there who'll buy something like that, as long as you start the bidding at $0.99.

    76. Re:Good move. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I am not from the US.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    77. Re:Good move. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      So? Ebay's worldwide, so unless you live someplace where there's very few Ebay users, it's still a good place to unload things. It's quite popular in Canada, the UK, etc.

    78. Re:Good move. by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Romania, not so much, no.
      Anyway, we have Okazii.ro here, which is a Romanian Ebay. However, it's a defective product and I don't want to contribute to a stranger's unhappiness.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    79. Re:Good move. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm certainly no corporate-governance-and-structuring expert; but that really seems like something that would be worth fixing. The 'Innovator's Dilemma' problem, that timeOday was referring to, is a real one, and has a reasonable number of cases that people have had a chance to observe in the wild. Often, it isn't pretty. At worst, the company dies writhing in a puddle of its own red ink and vomit. At best, the company has enough inertia and legacy clients to just chop off whatever appendage is bleeding the most and do something different(see IBM, say, which seems to be doing fine now; but pretty much got nuked out of the client hardware and software business by Wintel, and had a rather unpleasant period.)

      I'm sure the professional M&A jockies and corporate bankruptcy chop-shoppers are just fine with the present model, since they feed on the ugly transition points; but the less sophisticated shareholders, the employees, and even the customers seem less than ideally served.

      I have spoken to a few people in management consulting, for a number of industries, and they tell of a strong 'action bias' among their customers: They get called in to decide if a given project is a good idea or not, or to do a valuation model for some complex asset, so the customer is asking for outside expertise to guide their decision; but they apparently get very unhappy if the answer is "The only winning move is not to play."/"This project's numbers just don't add up, just don't touch it and you'll be better off by approximately how much it would have cost." Neither they nor I pretend to understand whether this is a psychological thing(some sort of 'people desire a feeling of control over their life and environment, action enhances that feeling, just like futily honking in gridlock traffic does, psychobabble, yadda-yadda') or whether it is a rational response to irrationally applied standards for evaluating CVs(as in the sciences, where a study that obtains a negative result is way less sexy than one that obtains a positive result, perhaps people who have big, bold, projects, even if doomed, on their resume have better future prospects than the ones with a boring history marked more by prudent avoidance than risky action); but apparently it's a fairly big bias.

      I'd be interested to know how much of this sort of thing is action bias, how much is (misplaced) optimism, and how much comes down to a company being structured such that there is simply no option other than 'grow' or 'die', so even if everybody knows that 'cash out while the leaving is good, with a planned wind-down for the legacy customers' is the right move, it simply isn't on the table.

  2. Will EMC follow with Iomega? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Cicsco purchase of Linksys was closely mirrored by the EMC purchase of Iomega. Will EMC look to unload Iomega now? Anyone wanting to buy one would likely be interested in the other.

    1. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      I'm at a loss as to why anybody on Earth would want anything to do with iomega. Maybe you could explain it to me. Like I'm five.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Iomega only had widespread success in that short time period between floppy disks and widespread CD-RWs. Ever since then they have spent their time selling useless products at inflated prices with their usual slipshod drive quality. At best they could be selling tape drives by now. The DVD-RW market is saturated and flash drives do the rest of the tasks we would use removable storage so... what are they supposed to be doing then? Holographic storage? Heh.

    3. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      It looks like they're just pounding out ho-hum NAS boxes like the old Buffalo terastations, and a few rackmount storage servers.

      We had an earlier generation iomega rackmount at work. I swear it was there before I got there. The thing was a miserable clusterfuck of bad hardware and software choices. I'd be surprised if they're much better at it now.

      I guess it makes sense though. It doesn't make a lot of sense to go into high end storage equipment with a name you see on a Best Buy shelf, and there's not much in the way of unique storage solutions in the home user market.

    4. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what are they supposed to be doing then? Holographic storage? Heh.

      The right thing to do would have been to take the bags of money they made selling ZIP disks and invest it in next-generation storage of some kind. As you say, even holographic. This would have given the company a chance at a future, though they would have had to fire a shitload of people and go into near-dormancy when removable magnetic media got shit upon by flash RAM becoming inexpensive. Instead they chose the long road to extinction.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Iomega Jaz drives had about a 2-week lifespan. Where I worked, we had a period of time where we needed to ship about 1 GB of data at a time to/from clients on short notice, and they were the only option.

      We treated them as disposables.

    6. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by karnal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which sucked, in my opinion. Zip drives and Jaz drives (and their media) were an excellent idea, but poorly executed. My first zip drive ate a few disks before I figured out "if I use this drive, it will destroy everything." Took it apart before returning it (hey, we all want to know the "WHY") and one of the drive heads was physically disconnected from the arm.

      Had a Jaz drive later in life (donated). And you're right, the disks themselves appeared to randomly either not work or lose data. Almost seemed as if the tracking mechanism in the drive couldn't follow the pre-formatted platters properly at times. And any drive that you can't lay down the track (factory formatted) sucks.

      --
      Karnal
    7. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by snsh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Iomega's blunder with Zip was that for too long Iomega only sold them with external parallel-port and SCSI interfaces. By the time they started offering internal drives, PC's were shipping with 4GB hard drives and 720MB CD burners so 100MB and 250MB zip media was already obselete. I don't understand what took Iomega so long to make an internal version. Internal drives would probably be cheaper to manufacture and support, and Iomega probably could have made even more money with internal drives sold through system builders. Companies would have had them preinstalled in every computer, instead of having one or two drives shared around the office.

      I remember spending a lot of time messing around with Centronics extension cables and EPP/ECP settings on Windows 3.1 and 95 boxes to manage external Zip drives. What a waste.

    8. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Which sucked, in my opinion. Zip drives and Jaz drives (and their media) were an excellent idea, but poorly executed.

      Are you sure? Based on the rest of your post, I'm strongly tempted to conclude that "hey, maybe there's a reason everybody else packages the mechanism along with the media!"

      Floppies were never very reliable. Optical media was never very reliable. I thought flash had finally solved it, but recently had my first experience with an SD card that worked in all but a single machine - a machine that has worked with all SD cards but that one. Bummer.

    9. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by karnal · · Score: 1

      Exactly. did you read what you quoted of me? Excellent idea. Poor execution. In my opinion, when the Jaz drive worked, it was a fabulous way to transfer a gig (or two, can't remember offhand) via sneakernet. Problem was - it failed more than it worked.

      Again. Excellent idea. Poor execution.

      --
      Karnal
    10. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that they had though about this but they thought it wasn't feasible, but I think they would still be around today if they found some way to be backward compatible with floppy disks- or a better way to put it is to have the ability to read floppy disks. They could have owned the market. Around 1999, they were really starting to catch on, but people still needed a floppy, and often didn't have the room for a second disk drive.

      This is one of those times when you wipe your ass w/ the engineer's report and tell them to find a way to make it happen at whatever cost. Even if they had some kludgy drive where they bolted on a floppy slot but still fit it in a 3.5" bay, they would have been adopted much more widely than they were.

    11. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read that they had though about this but they thought it wasn't feasible, but I think they would still be around today if they found some way to be backward compatible with floppy disks- or a better way to put it is to have the ability to read floppy disks. They could have owned the market. Around 1999, they were really starting to catch on, but people still needed a floppy, and often didn't have the room for a second disk drive.

      Actually, we know for sure that doing this would not have "owned the market". In 1999 there had been not just one but two attempts at building high-capacity floppy drives compatible with conventional 3.5" floppies, and one of them was still on the market.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floptical
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS-120

      Note that iomega themselves actually shipped a floptical drive and initiated the research which lead to LS-120.

      The problem with these hybrid magnetic/optical drives (magnetic R/W heads, optical systems for track alignment) was reliability and speed. iomega developed Zip from their earlier "Bernoulli Box" technology, which didn't physically pinch the magnetic media between a pair of heads and instead relied on aerodynamics to suck the flexible media close to the disk surface without actually touching it. 3.5" floppy tech is designed for slower rotation speeds and relies on pinching. You can't spin them as fast.

      Also, the original type 720K/1440K floppies relied on super wide tracks and simple fixed mechanical alignment to tracks, using stepper motors for positioning, but higher density schemes need much narrower tracks and continuous head positioning with tracking, which was difficult to retrofit into the old 3.5" floppy design. (Those floptical and LS-120/240 drives had to have a second set of R/W heads just for floppy compatibility.)

    12. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Similar tale here. We have a couple of Iomega StorCenter px12-450r's. Total junk compared to the rest of the kit in the data center. Of course the rest of the stuff is EMC Clariion and Symmetrix, with a smattering of Dell PowerVault. Still, I would have though the Iomega would be close to the Dell. No way. Crappy interface. Very temperamental. I do have to give them a plus for their AD integration though. It worked surprisingly well.

    13. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their other blunder, the infamous one, was the world's first hardware virus. Bad enough on the external ones it was a nightmare for owners of the internal SCSI drives.

    14. Re:Will EMC follow with Iomega? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Huh? Floppies were never reliable? When did you start using computers, 1996?

      Back in the 80s, floppies were ridiculously reliable, and into the early 90s. After storage sizes increased, and floppy drive makers and floppy disk makers started cutting corners because floppy drives became a rarely-used afterthought, floppy drives and disks did indeed become extremely unreliable. But back when they were the primary storage method for home computers, they rarely had any problems, even with extremely frequent usage (remember, on systems like the Apple ][, there was no hard drive, and the floppies were the only storage used).

  3. My theory on how this could have been avoided by nopainogain · · Score: 0

    They could have improved the gui, maybe gone with some improved hardening tools like are found in the Cisco Works environment or the Cisco ASDM. Maybe borrowed some goodies from the Wireless Lan Controller interface. To me as a user of all the above, it doesn't look like they did much of anything to improve the Linksys brand other than throw out a couple 802.11N longer-range tools and go with the flow of everyone else for adopting WPA.

    1. Re:My theory on how this could have been avoided by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They could have improved the gui, maybe gone with some improved hardening tools like are found in the Cisco Works environment or the Cisco ASDM. Maybe borrowed some goodies from the Wireless Lan Controller interface. To me as a user of all the above, it doesn't look like they did much of anything to improve the Linksys brand other than throw out a couple 802.11N longer-range tools and go with the flow of everyone else for adopting WPA.

      Bingo. I was at least hoping for some type of basic CLI environment instead of the horribly shitty http-based GUI's they use. And a freaking console port, for the love of all that's holy, instead of full in-band read/write access. But then again I work on Carrier grade networks, and working with the Big Gear makes me kind of spoiled when it comes to that sort of thing.

  4. hot firmwarez by pinfall · · Score: 1, Funny

    How's that cloudy, autoupdatey, monitorey thing workin for ya?

    1. Re:hot firmwarez by alphatel · · Score: 2

      How's that cloudy, autoupdatey, monitorey thing workin for ya?

      We bought Linksys products without question for years, and enjoyed implemented great mini-features like site-to-site vpn or protocol filtering, forwarding, masking etc for all of our clients.
      As soon as they became a Cisco product, the quality, engineering and overall security of the products became questionable, and we started moving our soho/consumers to other brands, even though we liked them even less.

      I simply could not see any good coming out of selling hardware which would monitor our clients behavior without their explicit consent.

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    2. Re:hot firmwarez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their VPN was terrible, at least on the RVS series. I could count on it going down, and the highest grade crypto it supported was single des with md5. What a piece of trash. Futher, there was a hiddle page that anyone could access to enable telnet access, and the credentials were something like root with no password.

  5. Firmware by cgt · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm glad they're suffering. They deserve to suffer for their decision to force their evil cloud firmware on people.

    1. Re:Firmware by symbolset · · Score: 1

      This issue didn't get all the attention it deserved. And now it likely won't.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:Firmware by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Probably because anyone who would know why it was an issue already knew that Linksys gear was shit from, pretty much, the moment Cisco bought it.

    3. Re:Firmware by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or we knew that flashing DD-WRT instead of the PoS Cisco firmware would remove the problem within one hour of the device arriving at our domiciles. (I bought a Linksys WRT160NL just a month ago, works perfectly fine with a proper firmware. Current uptime 29 days.)

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    4. Re:Firmware by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it only removes the software problems. In my experience, build quality also suffered (cooling issues, radio 'brownouts' on Wifi devices, etc..) and, sadly, aren't repaired by firmware.

    5. Re:Firmware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As soon as that story broke my Cisco router went right into the trash and I purchased a MikroTik out of my company's inventory. Never had to worry about a thing or power-cycle after that.

    6. Re:Firmware by semi-extrinsic · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I haven't experienced any hardware problems, but then again hardware problems are typically randomly distributed among devices, I may just have been lucky with mine.

      --
      for i in `facebook friends "=bday" 2>/dev/null | cut -d " " -f 3-`; do facebook wallpost $i "Happy birthday!"; done
    7. Re:Firmware by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I believe on some Cisco routers, they recommend reducing the transmit power to 50% in the dd-wrt forums to keep the radio from overheating, because the unit has insufficient cooling.

  6. It's about time. by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Linksys produced some decent gear prior to the acquisition. After Cisco bought the company, the default answer for any sort of serious trouble with SOHO gear became "oh, I see you're referring to our Linksys brand; if you're serious about small office or branch office communications, you need to upgrade to our HOLY SHIT THAT'S EXPENSIVE Cisco brand gear instead." This applied nearly universally to cases where a prior generation piece of Linksys gear had performed quite well in the same role. Here's to hoping the brand can get back to its roots instead of serving as a loss leader for more expensive gear.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
    1. Re:It's about time. by BlueBlade · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On the other hand, there's a reason Cisco gear is expensive: it's enterprise class. A few months ago I went to a client's site to help expend a microwave network. Prior to doing the upgrade, I asked what gear was running at the remote location. "It's all Cisco switches and routers!", I was told. So we start working, installing new fiber lines and antennas. At one point, I needed to remotely shut down a switchport in one of remote locations to prevent a spanning loop. I try ssh, then telnet, no connection. I try http, and what do I see, it's one of those "Linksys by Cisco" SMB switch. That particular model didn't allow me to shut down a single port, nor did it allow me to re-allocate the limited PoE wattage to new equipment. Also, as far as I could see, no real diagnostic info on the ports, other than a packet counter and up/down status.

      We lost almost 2 hours to send someone to drive to the location and back, just to unplug a network cable. Now, I'm not going to say that Linksys switches aren't perfectly fine in some small business environments, but once you start having a big network they're a headache. Rebranding consumer-grade equipment with the Cisco trademark was one of the stupidest decision I've seen a large company make. Every networking professional I've talked to thought it was a terrible idea; it's almost impossible to see how management could ever even consider the idea, let alone go ahead with it.

      It's decisions like this one that make me think that Cisco's hegemony in the network is coming to an end. You can't have management that clueless and thrive. Also, they're still acting like they're the only game in town, with prices that are borderline ridiculous and byzantine licensing rules (ASA licensing, I'm looking at you!). It's a good thing Juniper has grown up and is now making some pretty awesome routers for very good prices. On the switch level, Cisco is still ahead of the pack, but other vendors like HP are stepping up.

      I think it's sad, because Cisco hardware tends to be awesome. Hopefully Cisco can go back to having more engineers making some business decisions, because the current leadership certainly doesn't understand the moving market.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    2. Re:It's about time. by KMnO4 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure the branding was always the problem. cf: http://www.amazon.com/Cisco-SD2005-5-port-Gigabit-Switch/dp/B0000C20XG/

    3. Re:It's about time. by philip.paradis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Speaking as someone who deals with Cisco gear on nearly a daily basis, I fully agree with the premise of people needing to understand the difference between Cisco gear and alternatives designed for smaller environments. That said, most of the issues with Linksys products in recent years have been attributable to Cisco neglecting the hell out of Linksys branded product lines, and simply using the resulting failures to attempt to sell Cisco branded gear. It's been truly shameful, and I'd love to see it come to a stop.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    4. Re:It's about time. by BlueBlade · · Score: 2

      That's entirely my point. What you link to isn't Cisco gear, it's rebranded Linksys. Any switch that isn't running Cisco IOS (or at least CatOS for the older chassis switches) isn't real Cisco gear. All Cisco did was confusing average person and destroy the good reputation of the Cisco brand.

      --
      Religion is the best example of mass psychosis
    5. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you are talking about is a totally different situation than anyplace linksys gear should have been used in. I think that's the piont you're trying to make though. Cisco gear is high end enterprise level stuff. Linksys stuff was great home/soho equipment BEFORE cisco bought them. After cisco bought linksys, the ruined the entire product line. In reality, they made it worse when they rebranded all of it cisco, now you have crappy equipment with a trusted name, all that does is ruin cisco's reputation across the board. Cisco should have keep the linksys equipment branded as linksys to make a clear distiction, and should have leveraged on the strength of linksys, that they made good cheap equipment. Greed led to stupid decisions that ruined one product line, and tarnished the reputation of the other in the soho market.

    6. Re:It's about time. by b1t+r0t · · Score: 3, Informative

      Admittedly, one of the reasons Cisco bought them was because so many people didn't need maximum-speed minimum-latency ASIC-based routing (and certainly not L3 switching) in an era when 32 bit CPUs were cheap enough for consumer gear; being able to remotely get a CLI on a device in another city and individually control ports; or even the plethora of different standards to link multiple offices. (A simple watchdog timer would have been nice in Linksys gear, though.) A good part of the price of Cisco gear can be justified simply by not having to travel multiple hours just to push a button to reboot something. A lot of very small companies didn't need that, which is why Cisco was scared enough of market erosion to buy them.. But your example shows just how bad it was to forcibly re-brand everything as Cisco.

      I'm sure the reason Cisco did the rebranding was simply out of their habit of Acquire and Absorb. This worked for enterprise stuff that was a somewhat niche market when Cisco bought them, when the acquisition was a good fit for their switching/routing architecture. But Linksys wasn't enterprise stuff. And Cisco didn't understand consumer stuff. Or the consumer market.

      And then there was the "red-headed stepchild" angle. I was a Cisco employee at the time of the acquisition. We couldn't even buy Linksys gear at a decent discount through the employee hardware purchase program. I wanted a Linksys 24-port gigabit switch to use at home. Guess who I bought it from? Dell.com had the best price, and it was easier to order, too.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    7. Re:It's about time. by Thorodin · · Score: 1

      I hope you haven't copyrighted "Holy Shit..." cause I'm going use it. That's a great line and can be applied to many companies such as EMC and Cisco. In fact, later today I'm attending a kick-off meeting for our VOIP project with Cisco gear. Now, if I can just get up the guts to use that phrase with the CFO in attendance.

    8. Re:It's about time. by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's Cisco's own damn fault. The hardware in the Linksys is perfectly capable of doing all of those things, except Cisco simply chooses to disable that functionality in firmware to coerce you into buying the EXACT SAME HARDWARE with different, much more expensive, non-crippled firmware.

      Even the cheaper Micrel or Realtek switch fabrics support things like individual port enable and PoE allocation, and feature-rich diagnostics via a serial register interface.

      They're falling into the same trap that automakers are. "If you want a $400 sunroof, you have to buy the $4500 leather and NAV package."

      If you want to be able to turn of an individual port, you have to buy the $5000 switch with eleventy features you don't want, rather than the $100 switch.

    9. Re:It's about time. by dreamchaser · · Score: 0

      If you didn't ask what models said hardware was then you didn't do your due diligence. That's all part of the standard discovery done when planning and executing a network project, or any project involving hardware for that matter.

    10. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you do know there are multiple operating systems that all
      claim to be cisco ios, right?

    11. Re:It's about time. by ulzeraj · · Score: 1

      Do it! Report the results.

    12. Re:It's about time. by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Take a look at some of the TrendNet. Their managed layer 2 gigE line is good and cheap.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    13. Re:It's about time. by Vrallis · · Score: 1

      Actually, Linksys *used to* produce some decent gear a couple years before the acquisition. In the last 2-4 years prior their quality went completely to crap. I've always wondered what the hell Cisco was thinking basically damaging their reputation by continuing to manufacture the same garbage Linksys had been producing the last couple years.

    14. Re:It's about time. by Rogerborg · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, there's a reason Cisco gear is expensive: it's enterprise class. [...] with prices that are borderline ridiculous

      Pick a point, bucko.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    15. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not all cisco is cisco. Cisco SMB in general is a piece of turd. Forget IOS or even compatible command line. Some devices can't even be fully managed from command line and you're stuck with mediocre web UI. I'll swap cisco SMB for Mikrotik any day.

    16. Re:It's about time. by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, there's a reason Cisco gear is expensive: it's enterprise class. [anecdote snipped]

      And yet, I can do everything you needed to do on the Netgear managed equipment I use at home, and it costs less than the "Cisco Small Business" equipment that couldn't do the job for you. Compared to "real" Cisco equipment, it may not be as powerful, but for the target market of "small business", it's more than enough.

      Sometimes, too, less powerful is better. I can't tell you the number of times I watched Cisco-certified people take 20-30 minutes to make configuration changes to Cisco equipment that would take seconds on other network gear simply because there aren't nearly as many features that need to be dealt with.

    17. Re:It's about time. by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      Which is fine until you need those features. They may have also taken 20-30 mins to make absolutely sure they were doing the right thing and it wasn't going to break anything. Where as you would just change it, and see what happens and if it broke something, then you'd look to fix it.

      Not breaking something in the first place is something you learn after you've broken a couple of large systems by not fully understanding the problem

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    18. Re:It's about time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly why was this guy modded as Flamebait? It's 100% correct. GP deserved what he got if he didn't properly recon the remote gear.

  7. Very Good Move by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Cisco never did anything with Linksys anyway. Cisco treated Linksys as a red-headed step child. Often the firmware updates didn't fix the bugs I was hoping. The IPSEC implementation on many of their Linksys brand routers is still broken and I could go on and on.

  8. I would buy it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $1 for the assets and CISCO can keep the liabilities. Seems fair!

  9. Re:It's about time. Indeed. by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work for a large enterprise. We "should" be buying more expensive gear. However...

    We had a series of small conference rooms that often hosted meetings requiring WIFI access to one of our "play" networks that's isolated from most everything else. We bought a couple of the SMB Linksys/Cisco wireless access points. I believe they were about $500 each. We immediately had problems with them dropping connections, even with small numbers of users. A call to Cisco resulted in "um...you're at megacorp? Buy our enterprise gear. With your discount, surely you can "upgrade" for only a few thousand". And that was that. There was little effort put into solving the problem other than trying to shoo us into buying more expensive equipment. We ultimately punted them all, returned them for a full refund, and are now using access points from Asus that cost us less than 1/2 of the price and work flawlessly.

    Lesson learned.

  10. Cisco deserves to lose millions on this by Tridus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They totally screwed up this acquisition from beginning to end. Back when they bought Linksys, it was a highly competitive brand in its market segmenet. Now it's a joke, with poor quality hardware by the standard of other home networking gear, overpriced, and features total nonsense like cloud-based router configuration that nobody sane asked for. Cisco's answer to all this is "oh, you just need to spend 5x more on Cisco gear instead."

    Why would I do that in my house, Cisco? I'll just buy from the competition instead and wind up with a negative view of your entire brand. I don't know if Linksys has any talent left in the company after how badly Cisco has screwed it up, but I hope they can recover once they're put under competent management. I still have fond memories of the old WRT54, which worked so well for so many years.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:Cisco deserves to lose millions on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still run a WRT54G... it's actually running HyperWRT which is long since transformed into Tomato along the way, but I think the only times the thing has been rebooted in the past 5 years has literally been when I lost power (which being in the NE has been 3x in the past 2 years with 2 hurricanes and a snowstorm that conked me out for 4-5days each). Quite honestly, it "just works".

      I have a 160N with DDWRT, that works well too - their stock firmware was total crap.

      They were on the downhill slide since Cisco bought them, until the "cloud based config" fiasco, and that made me and I'm sure a whole host of other people say "F-that, I'm never ever going near Linksys again". Maybe that was their intent, thinking it would drive people towards real (read: expen$ive) Cisco hardware - but honestly, people bought "soho" routers *because* they didn't want to spend outrageous amounts of money... and there's other vendors out there that will work just fine for a lot less than Cisco's inflated prices.

    2. Re:Cisco deserves to lose millions on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem for Cisco was that Linksys was *too* good when it was an independent brand. Cisco pretty much had no opportunity in the SMB market left, as Linksys pretty much ruled as king. At the time, only Linksys had such a strong image/product line. People described them as 'no frills' but a great deal of the appeal was that even if Linksys didn't invest the resources to provide feature/function, they had so much third-party firmware. Pretty much every function a home or SMB could ask for, they could have for themselves.

      Cisco thought 'hey, it's just one brand, we'll purchase them, castrate their products to reduce degree they compete with 'enterprise' Cisco offerings, and take the revenue the products continue to earn on reputation". Suddenly those cheapo routers were changed from Linux to VxWorks and specs *reduced* in order to distance them from enterprise capable products. Problem being that the changes were blatantly obvious to the customer base and competitors, and whilst Linksys became overpriced crippled equipment, competitors began reproducing the former Linksys success (e.g. Asus now goes so far as to pay third party firmware developers for their network equipment).

      Basically, the strategy probably did what it was supposed to do for a little while, stall the rate at which cost-efficient competitors ate into Cisco's share. Now, however, Linksys is no longer a threat and there are too many competitors of former Linksys quality for Cisco to buy off the market. Linksys ownership for Cisco is completely pointless. Sadly, the Linksys brand value is pretty much evaporated for *anyone* over a decade of Cisco ownership.

    3. Re:Cisco deserves to lose millions on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likely the goal was to take one of the bigger companies in the soho/smb area and create an upgrade path, I assume.

      Except instead of taking linksys's decent and price competitive products and continuing to compete in that market Cisco management went to town on it in what surely will be some case study in stupidity for a management class someday. They turned the linksys products to shit, making them feature poor even in the cheap soho/smb market. Then they stuck their enterprise brand on that complete shit they produced. They then marked them up so they weren't even competing price wise in that market and took advantage of the trust people had in the name. Then their "upgrade" path became, "ohh you know that complete shit we sold you that doesn't work like it should? yeah you needed to buy this enterprise hardware that was 10x more expensive to have that/those feature(s)."

      So they took a pretty big shit on their own brand. If they are selling it off hopefully linksys goes back to making fairly good, fairly cheap hardware and whoever came up with that "strategy" in Cisco is working the mail-room now to never be trusted with another business decision.

  11. Wait, did I miss something? by JTD121 · · Score: 4, Informative

    All the people here on /. should know that most recent-ish 'Linksys' gear is supported by aftermarket firmware; DD-WRT and Tomato among others. Granted, a lot of people might not know the difference, but they run much much better than the shit that ships on them.
    Hell, I'm still using a WRT54G from forever ago, and it's been online almost constantly (barring my tweaking and futzing up the install occasionally) since mid-2005. No slow-downs, no hiccups (not counting misconfigurations), etc, etc. And this is old old MIPS with 16MB RAM, guys. You know in the newer (WRT120N was mentioned above) hardware should at the very least perform as well as previous products, if not better. But it doesn't. Flash your firmware, and see the difference. Seriously. I'm sure if they cam pre-installed with something like Tomato, out-of-the-box, Linksys wouldn't have this weird brand identity crisis. But of course, Cisco and open-source are at polar opposites of the world, it seems. Also, WTF Slashdot? It's 2012, please get a WYSIWYG editor, instead of arcane HTML formatting and such. Line breaks.

    1. Re:Wait, did I miss something? by CronoCloud · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I've got two old reliable WRT54G's, comparitly sucky V8's no less. One of theem stopped working "right" about a year after purchase, replaced it with the other one which has never had problems. I eventually flashed the first one with DD-WRT which apparently fixed it and it now serves as a "bridge" I love those things.

      I'd replace them with N gear, but when Cisco bought Linksys, they futzed up everything...the prices went up, the form factors changed, and even the model naming/numbering is different. They have multiple "consumer" routers, none of which were as cheap as the old ones. Back in the old days, you knew what to buy, In the B's it was the BEFW11S4, in the G's it was the WRT54. Needed a bridge? WET11, WET54. You didn't need to install software, or have any kind of "cloud" administration (which I only just heard of in this thread) you could just open your web browser to 192.168.1.1 and set the things up.

    2. Re:Wait, did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swore off Cisco/Linksys when I found they had removed the ability to use the AP as a wireless bridge. The capability was present in the Linksys-only versions, and obviously the hardware supported it after reflashing. They just took it out to try to upsell, the bastards.

    3. Re:Wait, did I miss something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem being that as of the VxWorks change, Linksys wasn't the best bang for the buck anymore. Sure you can flash them with DD-WRT after they figured out how and get access to a more crippled set of resources than the predecessor, but non-linksys brands were selling products that were price-competitive with new WRT54Gs, but with the specifications of a pre-5.0 WRT54G.

      Nowadays, getting a Linksys N router if you want third party firmware is silly. I picked up an ASUS device for my 802.11n upgrade and it's even better than the 'good old days' Linksys pre-Cisco didn't do anything to hinder *or* help third party firmware development, nowadays the big players actively provide assisstance to third party developers (supporting third-party firmware is a requirement for a non-trivial portion of the market segment).

    4. Re:Wait, did I miss something? by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      Wireless N seemed to have brought a whole class of shitty routers out of Linksys (and plenty of other manufactures too). Very odd to find the same model with a completely different type of chip inside that's not compatible with DD-WRT.

      It's like Cisco spent $500M to get rid of a competitor, they just did it really slowly so no one else popped up right in their place.

  12. God knows what's wrong by Colourspace · · Score: 3, Funny

    with my reading-fu, but I SWEAR I first parsed that as 'Cisco rumoured to be selling Kidneys'.. I mean, they really stooped low this time..

    1. Re:God knows what's wrong by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's silly. Cisco certainly has warehouses full of arms and legs, which is what they charge their enterprise customers, but kidneys? No.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:God knows what's wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read it the same, and despaired. My brain is going! Or eyes. Or something. Then I thought, "maybe I'm not alone" and typed "ctrl+f kidney." Lo and behold, I'm not alone. Thanks, fellow defective reader.

  13. Quality vs Features by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    I have the Linksys E3000 WiFi router and have not had any quality issues. Part of this may be because I refused to install the push-based firmware that caused issues for a lot of people.

    I did notice a lot of features being dropped from the Linksys line once they became Cisco branded. One of the biggest examples was removing CLI from some of the higher-end Linksys switches. Of course, this was to prevent a loss of sales for Cisco's enterprise lineup. The result was that a lot of SMBs went with Netgear and D-Link.

    1. Re:Quality vs Features by C_Kode · · Score: 1

      I have the Linksys E3000 WiFi router and have not had any quality issues. Part of this may be because I refused to install the push-based firmware that caused issues for a lot of people.

      I did notice a lot of features being dropped from the Linksys line once they became Cisco branded. One of the biggest examples was removing CLI from some of the higher-end Linksys switches. Of course, this was to prevent a loss of sales for Cisco's enterprise lineup. The result was that a lot of SMBs went with Netgear and D-Link.

      I have the E3000 also. The one thing I don't like about it is it runs very hot. I have to tilt it up on it's side to keep it cool. If I don't, I notice that my WiFi connections act flaky sometimes.

      I used the base firmware for a long while, but finally switched to DD-WRT about a year and a half ago.

  14. Cisco can't deal with acquisitions by loufoque · · Score: 2

    I used to work for a company that was bought by Cisco: Tandberg.
    They cancelled all the high-end Tandberg projects because they were in competition with the products they had developed internally, despite Tandberg's products being vastly superior.
    Cisco's products are crap but they want to brand themselves as quality, and they want all their acquisitions to serve the low-end market.

    As a result all of the founders and star employees left the company. Several of them used the money they got from the IPO to make new companies in the same sector.

    1. Re:Cisco can't deal with acquisitions by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      reel to reel tapes, THAT tandberg?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Cisco can't deal with acquisitions by loufoque · · Score: 1
    3. Re:Cisco can't deal with acquisitions by jon3k · · Score: 1

      Which Tanberg products were superior to the high-end telepresence? Honest question, I'm barely familiar with either of the product lines. I just know that the high-end Cisco telepresence endpoints can be up in the $200k/location range.

    4. Re:Cisco can't deal with acquisitions by loufoque · · Score: 1

      The high-end Tandberg telepresence endpoint is the T3. Picture below from 2008.
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Tandberg_Image_Gallery_-_telepresence-t3-side-view-hires.jpg

      They sell the whole room, and I believe it is indeed in that price range, if not more.
      I won't go into too much detail, but know that Tandberg had made some interesting innovations to make both its software and hardware quite better than the competition; supporting higher resolutions, at higher framerates, with better encoder/decoder quality, better interoperability, and better data loss tolerance. Tandberg contributes (contributed?) to the new h265 video standards, and worked on next-gen endpoints with Tilera many-core processors. They were, however, quite more expensive that the alternatives, in particular their rival Polycom (no one considered Cisco as a viable telepresence solution at the time).

    5. Re:Cisco can't deal with acquisitions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TelePresence, the Cisco brand does not equal telepresence. We're talking basic room systems, interop with multipoint control units, and supporting video bridges with different units. Not explicitly an experience of a bunch of people around a boardroom table like a TV studio - that is the high-end Cisco telepresence was shooting for, and Tandberg and Polycom do have competing products in that range. Tandberg had video PBX-like system for managing the systems, the VCS, ways of doing NAT-traversal and an end-to-end solution for that management, and video solutions from an HD camera on your laptop, to a room system, to the full "you're putting in a TV studio for your conferences" solutions. Cisco certainly acquired a market leader in that regard. Just because Cisco built a system that had every bell and whistle did not make it easy to own, manage, or be ubiquitous enough to have other people use it for day-to-day business.
      And this far in, you won't hear much about Tandberg's competing product since the buyout and rebranding. I have had the experience of being in one, and beyond components, its all about the environment - lighting, sound, and having very literally damn near a professional tv studio to put all the gear in.

  15. Consumer profit margins by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    Cisco is used to fleecing companies just like Oracle does. Buying into consumer market will never get you those types of margins. (don't even bring up Apple, that fad is already on the down swing)

    Even in the Enterprise world, there are good options opposite Cisco these days. I've replacement most of my Cisco equipment with Juniper and have been quite happy with them and in some cases far happier than I was with Cisco.

    1. Re:Consumer profit margins by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      I don't think they wanted to become a consumer company. They just wanted to keep the low end products 'low' so they didn't compete with the enterprise offerings.

  16. Re:It's about time. Indeed. by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

    Whoever you were talking to.. you got screwed.. why spend $500 a piece for Linksys branded Cisco equipment, when you could have picked up Cisco Aeronet 2600's (or the equiv back whenever), for around $600, and that is not even the lower end of the Aeronet range...

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  17. Monday moring shocker by judoguy · · Score: 2
    I'm apparently dyslexic. I was scanning the page and read "Cisco Rumored To Be Selling Kidneys".

    I thought, "Man, they really are in trouble."

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  18. Possible expansion to brownware by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    I never understood why Linksys, DLink et al don't push hard into brownware. Imagine a Blue-Ray with buildt in DNLA and powered by POE. Only one cable, no separate power supply needed. DVB-T? Put a box in the attic and connect it wih a single ethernet cable. Make an amplifier with a POE switch up its ass, and a DNLA client. Could be the start of a very nice product line.

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:Possible expansion to brownware by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      For that to happen, one of two things would have to happen.

      Either they completely rebuild PoE from the ground up to provide the ~25-30W that some of these home entertainment devices need, or they invent the fantasy cheeseburger-shitting unicorn that is a 13W bluray player with full networking and streaming functionality, HDMI, and all the other bells and whistles.

      PoE was never designed to be a power source for anything other than low-power telecom equipment. It certainly was not designed for consumer equipment.

  19. Brand value and Margins are gone by perlith · · Score: 1
    Good discussion so far on how to erode brand value. I lost my preference for Linksys when their WRT54G models cut the amount of flash memory from 4MB to 2MB for no other reason than to improve margins. Now can't flash DD-WRT to the model. And, they tried to resell the 4MB flash memory models at a higher price as the "WRT54GL" model. Good job in destroying a loyal customer base.

    Used to be if you wanted a reliable wireless router in your home, you paid an extra $10-$20 and got a Linksys. Belkin, NetGear, and most other brands used to crap, but now have caught up in terms of quality and kept their prices lower. That being said, the low margins I think are the other big reason Cisco is looking to drop Linksys. From TFA:

    [The home-networking business] is a mature consumer business with low margins

  20. The acquisition went perfectly. by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From reading people's stories, it sounds like Cisco succeeded in every way. Linksys' made high-end consumer grade networking equipment. Cisco made enterprise grade networking equipment. Linksys posed two risks to Cisco: One is that Linksys could move into Cisco's territory if they started making enterprise grade equipment. The other is that enterprise users might find that Linksys equipment would be good enough in some cases, eating into Cisco's sales.

    Rather than risk that, Cisco bought Linksys and ran them into the ground to increase the size of the gap between their enterprise grade equipment and the nearest competitor. If they succeed in selling the company off, they not only succeeded but they recoup a part of their investment. And if Linksys' brand is soiled then even a good buyer with good management will be stuck.

    It sounds like it was a good plan.

    1. Re:The acquisition went perfectly. by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Cisco could have poured $500 million down the drain just to shut Linksys down. But they'd have faced the possibility of the management and talent leaving en masse to form a new competitor, plus the costs of "regulatory capturing" the Gubmint TLAs to keep awkward competition questions at bay.

      Instead they drained the life and spirit out of Linksys, the talent will have long since departed in a piecemeal fashion, and now they can safely render down the husk and sell it by the pound for kibbles and bits.

      This is a lesson in embrace, extend (into the cloud) and extinguish.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  21. Is Cisco interested in non-enterprise markets? by swb · · Score: 1

    It seemed like 10 years ago, Cisco gear was everywhere, even in small places -- because everyone had to have an access router and Cisco was a very common choice.

    Once DSL and cable-based internet became common for business, Cisco started disappearing from those environments. Their PIX line had some penetration, but it was complicated to manage compared to a wide variety of web GUI devices and the support agreements were expensive.

    In switching they seemed less prevalent until you got into organizations that needed L3 routing or extensive L2 management, but cost conscious organizations (common at the lower end) went with HP or other brands with similar features and cheaper support.

    When they bought Linksys, I assumed it was to create an "entry level" brand with light feature sets or limited expandability to win business at the level that outright won't even look at Cisco due to perceived complexity and cost relative to competition from HP, Netgear, DLink, Dell's PowerConnect line, etc. In many cases those products aren't cheap but cheaper in terms of support and feature wise very deep.

    It seems like this wasn't the strategy at all, just a "steering" brand to capture some of the low end market from a revenue perspective and try to convert these users into Cisco users. Apparently they've given up on this market.

    1. Re:Is Cisco interested in non-enterprise markets? by bastia · · Score: 1

      I think Cisco was interested in the consumer market. Perhaps they saw what Apple did with the iPod or the iPhone and thought that they could build high end consumer devices for a decent margin. They bought Linksys and Flip and released a couple of other produce lines targeted at the consumer market. I think that the strategy changed a couple of years ago. The recession was in full swing. Cisco's enterprise hardware wasn't meeting its targets, and I think that they told the analysts that Cisco would refocus on their core market. It's a good idea to diversify, but if you simultaneously fail at new markets and start slipping in your core market, something has to change.

    2. Re:Is Cisco interested in non-enterprise markets? by swb · · Score: 1

      To me it seems like they really are only interested in the large enterprise market or those entities primed to enter that market.

      IMHO, the market they should have been interested was the SMB market -- why they would choose to give away that market to Netgear and Dlink and the other similar players is beyond me.

  22. I'm Excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they will go back to producing equipment that doesn't suck.

  23. DD-WRT is not their product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're shipping both the hardware and software together as a package. DD-WRT may support their hardware better than they do, but that just show they've failed to deliver a good product as shipped.

    1. Re:DD-WRT is not their product by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter: if you already own the hardware, and the software on it is crap, then it's far cheaper to download DD-WRT and install that than to go buy a brand-new router and hope it works better. Besides, even if you go out and spend $100+ on a brand-new router, how do you know it won't have a lot of problems too? You probably thought that when you bought the Linksys unit, and obviously that was a mistake. Trying an alternative firmware is free.

      If you don't have compatible hardware, and you're cheap, you can also do what I did: buy something used on Ebay. That's how I got my Cisco/Linksys E1000 for $10-15, which runs great with DD-WRT. Just be really careful you're getting a hardware revision that runs DD-WRT properly; this takes a little research on DD-WRT's website. The hardware makers (all of them, not just Cisco/Linksys) constantly monkey with their hardware, making new revisions, some of which run alternative firmware great, and others which don't. If the seller's ad doesn't show the HW revision, ask him; if he doesn't know, don't buy it, because it's probably the one that doesn't support DD-WRT. The ones that do usually get bid up more.

  24. Why not? They never did anything with it by gelfling · · Score: 1

    They improved the product line by exactly zero. Other than the occasional theoretical speed bump borne of the next standard they never added a single feature or usability or new or interesting product to market. And they never fixed a single quirk or bug of any of the products new or old. My old WRT110 is as usable today albeit slightly slower, than anything they've brought out in since. And it still fails occasionally with ONE laptop running Win7-64 (but not any of my others) because it runs Access Connections. So if Cisco wants to junk it, so what?

  25. Great.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What am I going to do with my LCNA training now?

  26. Pure Digital (Flip), Linksys and consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I worked for Pure Digital. We made the most popular solid state video recorders in the world when Cisco bought us. From the inside it was very clear what Cisco was thinking. Cisco's consumer division was floundering and they had no idea what to do. Cisco doesn't know how to play in the consumer space. They bought Pure Digital in large part because of PDT's management. Pure Digital was a start up that roared into the consumer space in less then 4 years to become one of the biggest brand names in the space. There were surveys that put our brand name at par or above Sony. Kodak wasn't even close. At the time our camcorders dominated the Amazon top 10.

    >> Cisco bought us and immediately made our CEO and entire executive team the head of Linksys.

    The big problem was that Cisco isn't a consumer company. There's a whole different set of rules and Cisco couldn't cope. As a subset...

    1) Margin - Cisco's margin demands were ridiculous. Impossible for a consumer company (except maybe Apple).
    2) Timing - Christmas is everything in the consumer world. Cisco didn't understand consumer product timing..
    3) Marketing - We deliberately pushed against Cisco's logo on the devices... we lost.
    4) Consumers - Cisco doesn't understand consumers.
    etc etc.

    In the end our management came up with a few interesting things... Valet for instance. No more networking know how.. no keys, no configuration, no passwords. Just plug this USB stick into your computer and you're configured for the wireless router.. unplug and store the USB stick somewhere safe. It was the first attempt at making networking dead simple for the consumer but eventually PDT personnel got frustrate and people started leaving (right around the time the 2 year retention bonuses matured).

    Cisco spent over $600 million on Pure Digital. The reported number was $590 or so but it was more like $650... Then Cisco took a $300 million charge to close it. All told their ill fated attempt cost them around $1 billion.

    Of Cisco I can only say that they shouldn't have been in the consumer space in the first place. They're a mature company who's growth has slowed. They have a ton of cash and are trying to "invest" in future growth by randomly buying companies and hoping that one of them will propel their next growth spurt. They're tossing money at a dart board and hoping one of the wads sticks to the bullseye. For me it was eye opening when I first heard Chambers talk about how many market adjacencies (things not related to Cisco's core business) he was after...

    1. Re:Pure Digital (Flip), Linksys and consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to say it, but it also didn't help that, at the same time Cisco was buying Pure Digital, a new generation of smartphones with non-suck-ass cameras and built-in Internet connectivity was taking the world by storm, and rapidly rendering the Flip Camera redundant.

  27. Good, they made shit products by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Years back I bought one of the top of the line consumer grade routers from linksys/cisco. This thing has been a massive piece of shit. Only after flashing to DDWRT has it become bearable. I feel very ripped off and don't want to buy a new router because I already dropped $$$ on this one. I trusted them because of the two big name co's listed. Never again.

    Around the same time i bought one of those usb wifi dongles from another "big name" company. Total piece of shit. Drops connection to a router 7 feet away. Somewhere along the way big co's decided it's ok to make total shit cause profit margins.

  28. Note to self... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dump CSCO, buy NTGR.

  29. I was so happy Cisco got into this area. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expected good things I thought I would get a Cisco 2500 like device running Cisco ios with wireless built into it.
    I was thinking it would fit into my audio components rack. I was so disappointed in the ugly white box with blue blikin lights I could just spit.

    What a bunch of bumbling boobs.

    I would have paid top buck. I was not looking for another 25 buck device their are plenty of those. Not from Cisco wtf were they thinking.

  30. Good. by zacherynuk · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they'll fuck off out of the telephone and video conferencing market too. They need to concentrate on on selling high margin, high wattage switching products to resellers & distributors with golfing links to CTO's in large organisations with huge training budgets. That reminds me, it's December; my Cisco-Christmas-Spiv package should be here by now.

  31. Yes!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad to see Cisco slowly dying from our boycott.

    When they rendered my router useless, unless I would agree to let them wiretap my home network, I stripped out every piece of Cisco gear I had. It's still in a junk pile waiting to be recycled.

    Good riddance, to the wiretappers at Cisco!

    AT&T, You are next! You have allowed warrant-less wiretaps fro too long.

  32. Customers aren't actually buying net kit anymore! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cisco's desire to gimp an uppity disruptive potential competitor notwithstanding, there's another reason Cisco is looking to dump Linksys. The market for their product is simply drying up. PC's and other devices (iPad's, Roku's, Blu-Ray players, etc.) have all needed network connectivity built-in. No need for an aftermarket Linksys network card. Similarly, spurred on by carriers in search of incremental revenue, CPE's (customer premises equipment - cable and DSL modems) have started incorporating built-in wifi routers and extra ethernet ports. Cisco (perhaps wisely) decided to cede that cut-throat low-margin business to competitors, but it means they have nothing left to sell at retail to the typical home-user, once that home user has decided the wifi in their Verizon FIOS box is good enough and they don't need a stand-alone wireless router.

    The gimp'ed small-business kit that constitutes the balance of Linksys' product line has merely served to cannibalize sales of more profitable Cisco gear, while detracting from customer good-will when they (perhaps correctly) suggest customers solve their network issues by buying the proper Cisco kit they should have bought in the first place.

  33. Disallusioned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Cisco bashing has me disillusioned took a networking class which now feels like a Cisco infomercial with academic credits attached to it.

  34. Linksys SPA line of VoIP devices were a threat by blanchae · · Score: 1

    The Linksys SPA line of VoIP products were a real threat to Cisco SOHO market which was serviced by the Call Manager Express ISR. The inexpensive SPA9000 is a great little SOHO PBX that boasts a lot of features. The first thing Cisco did was to kill the SPA line and also any competition that it could do to its "money maker" CME line. Either they are really smart and bought out Linksys to kill it or so stupid that they killed it through incompetence. It seems to be the latter.

  35. Re:It's about time. Indeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever you were talking to.. you got screwed.. why spend $500 a piece for Linksys branded Cisco equipment, when you could have picked up Cisco Aeronet 2600's (or the equiv back whenever), for around $600, and that is not even the lower end of the Aeronet range...

    Pretty much. Never buy any wireless except aironet and in an environment with more then three you should be using a controller too. Also, it costs way less for all of this then the OP says.

  36. Download Firmware for Linksys products NOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The time is NOW!

    Download existing software and/or firmware for your linksys products NOW because when products change hands or are discontinued, sites and software has the history of vanishing forever.