I’m tempted to say that Linksys produce the best routers available for the home market. In fact that temptation extends to most of their home network products. Besides working well, they are neat boxes and they are stackable. For a geek like me, stackable stuff is great. It looks smart and doesn’t take up loads of desk space.
Linksys did something great: they produced a router that ran Linux. From their perspective this meant they didn’t have to develop expensive software, and from the users perspective it meant a very powerful and customisable piece of kit. Then the problems began: Linksys started playing the old game of modifying their product without changing the model number. I’ve seen this happen before and it still amazes me that companies are allowed to perform such deceptions. The WRT54G model went through a number of releases during its life, all of them sporting very similar hardware, except the very last version (v5.0). In this release, both the RAM and ROM in the box halved. I found this out when I purchased two of these boxes and couldn’t understand why the firmware wouldn’t flash. Some digging around on the Internet revealed many other baffled users with the same problem. There is no way to tell from the product description or packaging what the contents are. Only by unpacking and reading the labels on the underside of the router is it possible to tell if you have the decent product or a seriously cut down version. Like I said, deception.
Not content with the deception on their WRT54G, Linksys have now done the exact same thing with it’s successor, the WRT54GS. This one started off with 32MB RAM and 8MB ROM. Suddenly a new version (v4) appears with 16MB RAM and 4MB ROM. Did Linksys advertise this change? Did they hell. To punch the nails a little further into the coffin, the last version (v5) saw a further reduction in ROM to only 2MB.
I love Linksys kit, but I think this behaviour is completely unacceptable. I have bought their products under the belief that something in one box labelled WRT54G will be identical to another box with the same markings. Regardless of what functionality the product may have or not have between versions, they have sold me two different things.
Actually, Linksys did announce this. They had a press release on their website announcing the WRT54GL, which is basically the WRT54G v4.0, that still runs Linux.
In this press release they also mentioned that the WRT54G v5.0 would no longer be using Linux, but a proprietary OS that could use half as much RAM.
It did get publicized a lot… especially on WRT54G firmware sites. Besides getting rid of the ridiculously policy of introducing new products with an existing model number, I don’t think you can expect Linksys to do more.
I half agree with you, but the last point about keeping the model number is the big issue. At the time I had bought lots of WRT54G’s and knew they provided the functionality I required. I didn’t need to check press releases or look at specifications, I knew it was a good product.
The product number didn’t change but the functionality of the product did. What possible justification could Linksys have for doing this? It’s not as if there’s a shortage of possible model numbers. They did it so that their new, less functional product could be sold at the same price as its predecessor which already had a solid reputation.
Hello Steve,
I first read about this router in Linux Format ( An excellent publication from the U.K.)
All the buzz was how hackable it was. Following a few of the links in the article I found that there was an entire Linux OS redesigned to fit in the flash memory that would give you an entire working Linux system, firewall and router all on about 2 watts of power.
Right then I suspected this product (as designed) was going to die a quick death.
In many ways it’s like the old saw about the “all you can eat restaurant”
You go in and sit down. They give you a plate of food, when you ask for more, they tell you that’s all you can eat.
I suppose someone could concoct a plausible Linux conspiracy theory that would cast suspicion on the usual suspects. I’m more inclined to believe that it was less costly to use the proprietary software than free/open source with higher hardware requirements.
The fact that it also killed any modifications or hacks was a side benefit.
Apparently the same issues now face the cellular phone manufacturers.
There is a small but strong group of enthusiasts that would like to be able to program their phones to work as they would like them to, and not as they are forced to accept.
The FUD that the phone manufactures and cellular carriers are bringing back to the argument is that they have too much to risk allowing phones with uncertified modifications to exisit on their cellular network.
It will be interesting to see how Linux progresses in this market.
I enjoy using Linux,
The communitity is amazing in the amount and types of solutions they have been able to provide. I’m always amazed to see where it can be used and to what hardware it can be run on.