Oh, I read you loud & clear. I've been rather vocal to GL.iNet that the hardware is hampered by the obtuse way(s) they hand key aspects. I don't intend to stop.
That said there's only so much canned meat I can stomach before I start thinking about breaking out the cutting board, spices, sauces, matches, propane & BBQ.
I would say nonsense.
If you compare pfsense to OpenWrt they both do exactly the same and there is no significant difference in difficulty level, with that logic you should both want a contractor which is laughable.
GL ui only makes it easier, and it is a router for tinkerers, and yes if you really want to you can use it as a simple router, but the audience is also for OpenWrt interested people, not outliers.
Calling me a outlier is not something I will recognize myself to, simply because thats not true.
What I have a issue with is people who want to make the router only as feature closed as tp-link, and be furious if someone has a opinion it is a open router, if soho is important why selectively choose one for tinkerers?
Sorry but I don't get it, if they implement it right nobody would have issues with it and the client issue is also fixed.
And btw:
if we really reach the point of true 'soho', the point for buying gl routers stops for me, because I'm done when people even go as far of wanting luci also removed, I find it insane these ideas even exists on this forum.
and the truth is, they bought it as soho and cry about it because they rather wanted a fully feature closed system for stability, when in reality people like me bought it for interest in OpenWrt or with better words a off shoot fork with a friendly ui, its exceptional rare to see a vendor targeting specifc on OpenWrt, and that has my tinkering interest.
Sad to see so many misinformation, and people wanting to debunk these great ideas behind this company, to turn it into boring routers with no features and open thoughts.
This surely wasn't the spirit when I joined this forum 
, but sure, I think we all should be in perfectly business suits with stable quality business routers for some reason which need to conform on zero down time tolerance, oh dear.... can't be taken serious, the sarcasm with this one, soho too pity.
Put a cafe owner or your mother in front of a Netgate 2100's GUI/'dashboard'. Then show 'em the GL GUI. Never mind the Linux vs FreeBSD aspect. Which do you think they'd rather use?
That's exactly what I'm saying: GL.iNet is trying to ride the fence between SOHO/appliance vs 'tinkers'/home labbers. By trying to appeal to each market they fail at both. If they were truly committed to the 'tinkers'/'openness' aspect they wouldn't do stupid shit like this never mind using & still selling SiFlower. Remind me: when did OWRT 18.06 go EOL?
You run Stangri's PBR because GL's PBR lacks the capabilities you need. I've also read your thread over on the OWRT forums re: writing a luci-test package. This isn't even close to the first time we've conversed, Xize11; you're not some kid with his first OWRT device & aspirations of a home lab.
Are you really going to tell me you're just another standard issue 'consumer'?!
So is it now not the expectation a network device should not be stable? When you joined the forum no one was around that would know, never mind point out, the fact pfSense uses FreeBSD vs OWRT is built on Linux.
It's your straw manning that is what's pitiful, Xize11. It might be time to 'touch grass,' as they say. [ Since clarified; no longer relevant.]
It would be the gl ui, not even considering OpenWrt at that point.
You made it appear to me of making OpenWrt look easier to configurate than pfsense, like OpenWrt is purely soho.
Unless I misunderstood, but don't agree with that, they share the same difficulty in configurating, the gl ui would in fact make it easier.
And yet I don't fully agree, sure on some of this, but at the beginning it worked?
About the sdks I agree, that is something what is not helping a tinkerer, and would be a buy issue for me.
I think things became much worse when they started selling to amazon, and a new audience joined with much higher expectations and the extreme soho things I ment with a locked router and less being openwrt, before then developers where much freely talkative on the forums, things have been extremely shifted, and I mean I don't give them wrong, I would prob doing the same, but that surely plays too.
I think we have different views on what soho is but we basically mean the same on OpenWrt.
Ok... You got me, I really intepreted this wrong started to take it personal.
I mistook your messages as someone who wanted only a locked down router with a limited ui, but if it goes about OpenWrt we mean the same thing.
No; I think we're both 'at loggerheads' that the GL GUI, being the abstraction layer it is, is a a problem because of all the underlying scripts GL packs onto OWRT to make the GL GUI so 'pretty.' Unless things have drastically changed UBNT used to build their CPEs & APs on OWRT. I would certainly call that an endorsement for 'enterprise ready.'
I don't consider OWRT as simply SOHO but yes, I'll agree to that thought: OWRT is easier to configure than pfSense. uci is a helluva lot easier to script using its batch mode using POSIX tooling than purely relying on bash but YMMV. For embedded devices I also call bash bloat.
Sure; at the launch. My Certa was only only one release behind Upstream (21.02) when I purchased it IIRC but OWRT is now @ 24.0.2 but the perfectly usable Certa is now unsupported by GL.iNet. Why would you buy such a stale platform that is the end of life (EOL)/unsupported 18.06? There's no upgrade path. Superficially speaking it's just more e-waste/landfill like the Opal until SiFlower (hopefully) makes it into mainline OWRT.
Again agreed. I'll never buy another Qualcomm device regardless of the ODM.
I think we agree more than we don't.
I think more 'cafe owner' but SOHO is typically defined as <20 employees. It's unlikely they'd have any staff on hand to set up something like EdgeOS or Active Directory up; they'd probably end up getting someone from BestBuy's GeekSquad if anyone at all.
I really don't think they're going to care about pps or what 'VLAN' stands for. Hell, to be less than charitable I don't think many of them know or even care Wi-Fi != Internet.
I try to make a distinction between pure OWRT & this pseudo-OWRT from GL.iNet:
@9b9e69c2-4b75-4420 if you want to see how clean it could be, go wander over to Openwisp
if you have an x300b or an ar300m you can flash their firmware, and then you get a simple Openwisp agent that monitors the device being online, can write to your device, uses SSH keys, setup VLANs, vpns, wireless mesh, WPA enterprise, social logins, you name it, you can do it to the limits of the device.
If I could manage the entire device in goodcloud to the extent I can control it in Openwisp, If I could disable the web interface on the stock firmware, I’d be quite happy.
Oh, I've very much heard of OpenWISP. The problem is I have a heavy bias against Wi-FI (ironic given the forum we're on, I know) & more so with mesh. Gimme good ol'Cat 6+ any day of the week.
Obligatory 'the cloud' is merely some one else's computer(s). You've heard of TailScale, yes? HeadScale is the F/OSS self-hosted control server to replace a TailScale server side/account. There's also 'Netbird' but I doubt very much either of their clients will sit on a stock AR300M with its limited 16 MB flash storage. Good thing I've got something for that:
Easier done than said:
Enjoy. As all things in life, YMMV.
