| |||||||||||||
The Grumpy Editor's Tomato reviewThe Grumpy Editor's Tomato reviewPosted Jan 11, 2010 23:43 UTC (Mon) by eli (guest, #11265)Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's Tomato review
I for one, hope our Grumpy Editor will review both DD-WRT and OpenWRT.
And if the Grumpy Editor is up for more bleeding-edge development combined with a $100 expenditure, I'd be interested to see what he thinks of those firmwares running on the WRT160NL. (I, sadly, have utterly failed to even attempt this, despite purchasing two of those routers. I shall get a round "toit" yet!) The WRT160NL is the successor to the WRT54GL: it runs Linux and has twice the memory and twice the speed of the venerable WRT54GL, and if I am not mistaken, requires no binary blobs. (Also note that the 'L' is very important; the WRT160N has completely different hardware.)
(Log in to post comments)
The Grumpy Editor's Tomato review Posted Jan 12, 2010 4:17 UTC (Tue) by louie (subscriber, #3285) [Link]
Ooh, thanks for pointing that out (I'm in the market for a 802.11n router right now.) Now if only I could find an 802.11n usb key that will reliably work with my wife's slightly older F12-thinkpad I'd be in business (people have pointed me at chipsets, but not actual devices- I guess because they fluctuate too much?)
The Grumpy Editor's Tomato review Posted Jan 14, 2010 19:12 UTC (Thu) by dsommers (subscriber, #55274) [Link]
I can understand that DD-WRT might be a worthy candidate to review. But if you read this forum thread [1], you'll get worried about the security focus DD-WRT have. On the fourth thread mentioning of some odd iptables rules, one of the developers responds. And their answer is basically "noticed, fixed, will come in the next release" ... no further clear message about when, or indicating for current users that there is an issue and how to fix it.
After this thread, I'm not even going to consider DD-WRT, unless they change their security attitude and prove it by acting differently.
|
|||||||||||||