Partial support isn't the same thing. Does GL.iNet need to dedicate engineers to the OpenWRT project to make this happen? Or it'll never happen? Will we all have to wait for a Flint 4 or a Slate 8 to get a true OpenWRT WiFi 7 router?
Qualcomm ain't gonna give up the secrets in their SDK. The OWRT project devs are going to need time to 'clean room' engineer/develop workarounds lest they face a risk of an 'intellectual property' lawsuit. By that time I think we'll be asking the same of the Slate 9.
Even then GL.iNet's GUI & underlying augmentations, custom scripts to OWRT are technically closed sourced but that's far less of a problem to work around.
2 Likes
Then why even bother mentioning OpenWRT support? This is the part that confuses me. It sounds like just partial support more than anything. Like why would GL.iNet risk its reputation and not go with a Mediatek chipset? Imagine how unhappy people will be when GL.iNet discontinues support and customers realize there is no fallback option to flash it to pure OpenWRT. Please help me understand this.
Yeah, well, it doesn't help we're both looking @ these devices for far more than mere SOHO/travel usage. I know I'm far beyond the point of turning back so from one addict pushing the limits of his GL.iNet device(s) to someone who's just aquired the taste: your first hit is free, now it's gonna cost ya.
OWRT is a helluva gateway drug.
2 Likes
You barking at the wrong tree, you need to take your frustration with Qualcomm, they the ones holding back, with that old a....s SDK, word of advice, find out which SOC it's being used before buy........ 
4 Likes
Flint 4 would likely be a MT chip set based on the pattern, but Slate 8 would be a next gen Wi-Fi device years down the road; Beryl BE would be the travel router you'd be waiting on for a MT chip set.
The GL-iNet firmware is OpenWrt, but it's Qualcomm's SDK variant where it's an older branch using the proprietary drivers from Qualcomm. The difference between GL-iNet and other manufacturers using the SDKs is that GL-iNet gives you root access and LuCI. The only routers on market with vanilla OpenWrt as factory firmware (and not an SDK) that I'm aware of are the OpenWrt routers, One and the forthcoming Two that will be manufactured by GL-iNet according to information.
Considering that the OG Flint is still in snapshots for vanilla OpenWrt, IPQ6k being as far along as it is, don't hold your breath for ipq53xx that Flint 3 and Slate 7 use being supported as no devices using these SoC's are supported at all yet in any way by vanilla OpenWrt.
3 Likes
Unless GL.iNet got the Qualcomm chips for cheap, it makes me wonder why they didn't go with Mediatek all the way. I think fans are looking for a true flagship WiFi 7 OpenWRT router.
I think the 'true fans' are going to hold off until the OpenWrt Two is available... which, ironically, GL.iNet is said to be the OEM rather than the ODM of the SDK-based devices aformentioned.
1 Like
The wait is killing me because the OpenWRT Two has most of the specs I want. The only thing that isn't clear is which CPU and how much RAM. I have a hunch it'll be a Mediatek chipset. I'm praying it'll have at least 4GB of RAM. Maybe make an 8GB RAM variant as well? RAM is so cheap these days!
You know what I like about conversing with you? You've barely just jumped in with both feet but I think you secretly have a streak in you that is the hacker ethos.
You want 8GB? Pffftt! Stop thinking so damn small! Get a decommissioned HP EliteDesk 800 Mini Gen-whatever, slap some multi-TB SSDs/NVMes & fill it with 16 or 32GB. OWRT runs on x86-64!
Seriously though, the single biggest problem with building your own OWRT AP isn't the CPU/SOC. The Intel N100, N200, N300-series SBCs are pretty close to the same the power drawn as ARM's latest. The biggest problems are the blasted chip sets of the Wi-Fi adapters. Again MediaTek seems to have the better reputation but as I've stated elsewhere, I loath Wi-FI; gimme good ol'Cat 6+ any day of the week.
1 Like