LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices) [LWN.net]

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 16:14 UTC (Fri) by CyberDog (guest, #29668)
In reply to: LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices) by kh
Parent article: LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Well the WRT54GL targets the tech savvy audience who should be perfectly capable of telling the two apart.

The WRT54G (v5) targets the majority of the (un-technical) userbase, who would only be confused by extra acronyms.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 19:47 UTC (Fri) by ndye (guest, #9947) [Link] (8 responses)

The point seems to be that most etailers don't let you specify you want V4 of the WRT54G.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 4, 2005 7:33 UTC (Sun) by gfranken (guest, #22822) [Link] (1 responses)

Almost bought a WRT54G the other day at the local Staples. Miracle of all
miracles, the Staples floor salesperson runs Linux on his box at home, and
he informed me that all of theirs are V5. He tipped me on the WRT54GL
(which Staples didn't have in stock). I went home and ordered it via the
Net. Sometimes, I get lucky.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 5, 2005 21:20 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

And even though his selfless (ok; corporate-less) act probably ensured you'll spend money there in the future, you dasn't compliment him to his boss for it, since it'll probably get him yelled at.

*Now* are y'all ready to trash the idea of public corporations?

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 5, 2005 3:34 UTC (Mon) by loening (guest, #174) [Link] (4 responses)

The point is that Linksys is selling a wireless router, not a Linux box. They need make no claim on whether or not different versions of the WRT54G will run Linux, as long as their product works as a router.

I think we should all appreciate the effort that Linksys is going through to continue selling a Linux capabable version of their equipment.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 8, 2005 7:52 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] (3 responses)

This is true. But it is still annoying that so many companies insist on using the same identical name on products that are not, infact identical.

This doesn't only matter for people who want to run Linux. (or otherwise hack the boxes) it also matters for people that for example want to limit their hardware to a few specific types of items to easen maintenance.

It's like that network-card (I forget) that used to be named like "86210-b-v3" and still actually had 3-4 different and completely uncompatible chips (and thus drivers). Very annoying.

Besides, labeling the boxes with say "V4" and "V5" would probably have the effect that most unknowing consumers would prefer the V5 anyway, so it's not like it'd be a loss to them.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 8, 2005 15:47 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] (2 responses)

Yes, this annoys me. It's so unprofessional. If it's not the same product, and especially if it's not obvious from the appearance that it's not the same product, then it should say so. Surely putting v2, v3, ... after the model number on the box won't hurt sales to folks who don't care about the subtleties?

Don't read this as a specific criticism of Linksys. It's a common problem. I've even seen a case where the Mk1 used 12V DC and the Mk2 used 7.5V AC, and the connector between the power brick and the box was the same size for both and not labelled.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 15, 2005 12:45 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] (1 responses)

> I've even seen a case where the Mk1 used
> 12V DC and the Mk2 used 7.5V AC, and the
> connector between the power brick and the
> box was the same size for both and not
> labelled.

It's still possible they were interchangeable, particularly if the 7.5
volt was a higher amp rating. Due to the way many DC power adapters work,
the same adapter may provide 12v @ 100mA (perhaps even 16v nearly open
circuit), but if the current rises to 250mA, it'll only provide 7.5v.
This on a 7.5v 250mA rated adapter. It will provide either one, depending
on what the draw is.

Also note that many low-power appliances have a fairly wide voltage
tolerance. They have to, not only due to the above, but because most of
the chips will be designed for the broadest use possible, often including
automotive/marine or battery operation, and those chips are generally the
most critical parts, unless voltage gets so high capacitors begin to pop
and current gets high enough to fry resistors. Nominally 12v automotive
systems can easily run 17 volts or higher on a full battery and little
accessory electrical drain. Nominally 1.5 volt batteries are actually
1.25 volt if rechargable-NiCad (and I believe NiMH versions are similarly
lower than nominal voltage ratings, but don't recall the specific value)
but source a far higher amperage if the resistance is low enough. On a
typical nominally rated 9v unit, 6 cells, then, output will only be 7.5
volts at full charge, even tho it's rated 9.

While 12v to 7.5v is probably one margin to the other, many portable units
will be perfectly happy on a wimpy 12 volt supply rated 100 or 150mA, when
the unit says 9v 200mA, or conversely, perfectly happy on a 9v 500mA rated
supply, when the unit says 12v 150mA. I've run 12v on 7.5v supplies and
the reverse as well, in a pinch, but I don't like to do it for long or
unsupervised, because either the unit or the power supply (depending on
which way one is going) often gets hot.

Thus, it's perfectly possible that the two were entirely compatible, if
the first only shipped with a 12 volt wimpy supply, due to cost, but was
really nominally 9 volt, while the second might have /still/ been
nominally 9 volt, but shipped with a heavier duty 7.5 volt supply that was
now cheaper.

Duncan

[OT] battery voltages

Posted Dec 30, 2005 23:55 UTC (Fri) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link]

Nominally 1.5 volt batteries are actually 1.25 volt if rechargable-NiCad (and I believe NiMH versions are similarly lower than nominal voltage ratings, but don't recall the specific value)

NiMHs are about 1.2V open-circuit. Five of them in series are almost exactly 6 volts--which is virtually identical to four lithium button-cells. (I've been experimenting with LED headlights...)

Greg

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 14, 2005 4:32 UTC (Wed) by fwenzel (guest, #33783) [Link]

That's right. I recently ordered one, making sure that I could return it for a full refund. Then I looked at the UPC to make sure it was the right version, and, lucky me, it was.

However they did not allow me to choose which revision I wanted, they didn't even know it themselves.