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!

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.

snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net hath wroth:

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: |

See: | (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?

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:00:06 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote in :

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).

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:54:17 GMT John Navas wrote: | On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:00:06 -0700, Jeff Liebermann | wrote in | : | |> snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net 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: |>|

|>

|>See: |>|

(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.

On 8 Aug 2006 21:50:17 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote in :

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 think that's quite possible.

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" wrote in :

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

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

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

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

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

On 9 Aug 2006 02:15:20 -0700, "eastcoastguyz" wrote in :

It mainly verifies that you could run more capable third-party firmware, if you wished -- no real difference otherwise.

By third-party, are you referring to doing things like installing Linux ala Busybox, etc?

On 9 Aug 2006 17:35:33 -0700, "eastcoastguyz" wrote in :

• DD-WRT.

• OpenWRT