My wrt54g is now a wrt54gl after firmware upgrade.

I have a wrt54g hardware version 2 which I upgraded to the latest
firmware (Firmware Version: v4.30.5). So far, everything appears to be
fine, but when I go to the web browser for the router, it now says it
is a wrt54gl, no longer a wrt54g.

Anyone else experience this? It isn't clear to me what the difference
between a G and GL is. Thanks!

On 8 Aug 2006 00:34:47 -0700 eastcoastguyz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

| I have a wrt54g hardware version 2 which I upgraded to the latest
| firmware (Firmware Version: v4.30.5). So far, everything appears to be
| fine, but when I go to the web browser for the router, it now says it
| is a wrt54gl, no longer a wrt54g.
|
| Anyone else experience this? It isn't clear to me what the difference
| between a G and GL is. Thanks!

WRT54G version 4 and back continued as the WRT54GL when WRT54G version 5
downgraded the hardware in exchange for a base OS that would run in such
hardware. the hardware savings exceeded the OS licensing cost, so Cisco
makes more money this way. But they kept the old Linux based line going
with the WRT54GL model.

So yes, you have a WRT54GL now, sorta.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-08-08-(E-Mail Removed) |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:

>The hardware savings exceeded the OS licensing cost, so Cisco
>makes more money this way.

I beg to differ. The only major difference between v4 and v5 hardware
is the size of the flash RAM and main RAM. I've compared the boards
in detail. All the same parts from the same vendor. My guess is
perhaps $0.50 hardware savings per board in large quantities. Let's
see... Hynix 16Mbit SDRAM chips are about $0.70/ea in 100K quantites.
What hardware savings?

Last time I checked, the VxWorks DevSys is $50,000. My guess is that
runtime licenses are about $5 per unit in 10K piece quantity. Probably
considerably less in millions[1], but methinks it's still more than
the paltry parts cost savings. Considering that memory chip prices
are in decline (after last years increases), while software license
fees seem to be increasing, it's also a lousy long term strategy.
There's even allegations of price fixing in the memory market:
| http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1989166,00.asp

See:
| http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/wireless/WRT54G/ (900K)
for a comparison photo. V4 on the left, V5 on the right. The
components have moved somewhat but they're basically the same.



[1] Duz anyone know the large quantity VxWorks licence costs?

--
Jeff Liebermann (E-Mail Removed)
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:00:06 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:
>
>>The hardware savings exceeded the OS licensing cost, so Cisco
>>makes more money this way.
>
>I beg to differ. The only major difference between v4 and v5 hardware
>is the size of the flash RAM and main RAM. I've compared the boards
>in detail. All the same parts from the same vendor. My guess is
>perhaps $0.50 hardware savings per board in large quantities. Let's
>see... Hynix 16Mbit SDRAM chips are about $0.70/ea in 100K quantites.
>What hardware savings?
>
>Last time I checked, the VxWorks DevSys is $50,000. My guess is that
>runtime licenses are about $5 per unit in 10K piece quantity. Probably
>considerably less in millions[1], but methinks it's still more than
>the paltry parts cost savings. Considering that memory chip prices
>are in decline (after last years increases), while software license
>fees seem to be increasing, it's also a lousy long term strategy.
>There's even allegations of price fixing in the memory market:
>| http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1989166,00.asp
>
>See:
>| http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/wireless/WRT54G/ (900K)
>for a comparison photo. V4 on the left, V5 on the right. The
>components have moved somewhat but they're basically the same.
>
>[1] Duz anyone know the large quantity VxWorks licence costs?

I personally think the change probably had more to do with efficiency,
stability and support. With all due respect to Linux advocates, it's
not a terribly good embedded real-time OS. It was probably used in the
first place as a matter of expediency and cheapness (and coolness), not
suitability. VxWorks is an excellent platform. Likewise QNX (my
personal favorite in this area).

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:54:17 GMT John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
| On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:00:06 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
| <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
| <(E-Mail Removed)>:
|
|>phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) hath wroth:
|>
|>>The hardware savings exceeded the OS licensing cost, so Cisco
|>>makes more money this way.
|>
|>I beg to differ. The only major difference between v4 and v5 hardware
|>is the size of the flash RAM and main RAM. I've compared the boards
|>in detail. All the same parts from the same vendor. My guess is
|>perhaps $0.50 hardware savings per board in large quantities. Let's
|>see... Hynix 16Mbit SDRAM chips are about $0.70/ea in 100K quantites.
|>What hardware savings?
|>
|>Last time I checked, the VxWorks DevSys is $50,000. My guess is that
|>runtime licenses are about $5 per unit in 10K piece quantity. Probably
|>considerably less in millions[1], but methinks it's still more than
|>the paltry parts cost savings. Considering that memory chip prices
|>are in decline (after last years increases), while software license
|>fees seem to be increasing, it's also a lousy long term strategy.
|>There's even allegations of price fixing in the memory market:
|>| http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1989166,00.asp
|>
|>See:
|>| http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/wireless/WRT54G/ (900K)
|>for a comparison photo. V4 on the left, V5 on the right. The
|>components have moved somewhat but they're basically the same.
|>
|>[1] Duz anyone know the large quantity VxWorks licence costs?
|
| I personally think the change probably had more to do with efficiency,
| stability and support. With all due respect to Linux advocates, it's
| not a terribly good embedded real-time OS. It was probably used in the
| first place as a matter of expediency and cheapness (and coolness), not
| suitability. VxWorks is an excellent platform. Likewise QNX (my
| personal favorite in this area).

So you think that the increase in support issues I've read about with the
version 5 was just due to the newness of VxWorks for the company, and that
in time this will work out?

Personally, I've have probably gone with NetBSD for such a thing (and yes,
I've a Linux advocate first, BSD second). I may still try to port NetBSD
over to WRT54GL some day. But I'm going to do Linux first because I am
already familiar with hack it even at the kernel level. I know nothing
about VxWorks internals, so I can't really say if it's good or bad.

I do know one issue with Linux (but not NetBSD) is that any changes made
to the internals of Linux must be included in source releases. That may
have been a motive, too. Maybe they had a new feature in mind but did
not want to release its source code.

I don't yet know how much Linksys changed the Linux guts to work for the
WRT54G. I might look at their source if I have time. But as soon as the
current project ends, I'm definitely going to be grabbing something like
OpenWRT for the WRT54GL and hack from there.

--
|---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
| first name lower case at ipal.net / spamtrap-2006-08-08-(E-Mail Removed) |
|------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|

On 8 Aug 2006 21:50:17 GMT, phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>| I personally think the change probably had more to do with efficiency,
>| stability and support. With all due respect to Linux advocates, it's
>| not a terribly good embedded real-time OS. It was probably used in the
>| first place as a matter of expediency and cheapness (and coolness), not
>| suitability. VxWorks is an excellent platform. Likewise QNX (my
>| personal favorite in this area).
>
>So you think that the increase in support issues I've read about with the
>version 5 was just due to the newness of VxWorks for the company, and that
>in time this will work out?

I didn't suggest anything of the kind. Are you rude by nature, or do
you have to work at it?

What I actually think is that some understandable new product teething
problems were greatly exaggerated (particularly by upset Linux/router
hacker proponents) and already have worked themselves out.

>I do know one issue with Linux (but not NetBSD) is that any changes made
>to the internals of Linux must be included in source releases. That may
>have been a motive, too. Maybe they had a new feature in mind but did
>not want to release its source code.

I think that's quite possible.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

>>So you think that the increase in support issues I've read about with the
>>version 5 was just due to the newness of VxWorks for the company, and that
>>in time this will work out?
>
> I didn't suggest anything of the kind. Are you rude by nature, or do
> you have to work at it?
>

There is nothing rude about what he said John. Apologize and go out and
talk to some real people! It might make your social skills improve.

On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:04:43 -0400, "ahh" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>>>So you think that the increase in support issues I've read about with the
>>>version 5 was just due to the newness of VxWorks for the company, and that
>>>in time this will work out?
>>
>> I didn't suggest anything of the kind. Are you rude by nature, or do
>> you have to work at it?
>
>There is nothing rude about what he said John.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

>Apologize and go out and
>talk to some real people! It might make your social skills improve.

If you have something on-topic to add, then by all means do so, but
otherwise please have the maturity to butt out.

--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

phil-news-(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On 8 Aug 2006 00:34:47 -0700 eastcoastguyz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> | I have a wrt54g hardware version 2 which I upgraded to the latest
> | firmware (Firmware Version: v4.30.5). So far, everything appears to be
> | fine, but when I go to the web browser for the router, it now says it
> | is a wrt54gl, no longer a wrt54g.
> |
> | Anyone else experience this? It isn't clear to me what the difference
> | between a G and GL is. Thanks!
>
> WRT54G version 4 and back continued as the WRT54GL when WRT54G version 5
> downgraded the hardware in exchange for a base OS that would run in such
> hardware. the hardware savings exceeded the OS licensing cost, so Cisco
> makes more money this way. But they kept the old Linux based line going
> with the WRT54GL model.
>
> So yes, you have a WRT54GL now, sorta.

Thanks for your post. What features can be done with the unit now it is
consideed a GL instead of being a G? Thanks!

"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message >
> I didn't suggest anything of the kind. Are you rude by nature, or do
> you have to work at it?

Cripes, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black...

> >Apologize and go out and
> >talk to some real people! It might make your social skills improve.
>
> If you have something on-topic to add, then by all means do so, but
> otherwise please have the maturity to butt out.

What a load of bullshit. Navas, you're a piece of work and that's not a
compliment.