Why is all official router firmware garbage?

[MG2R]

I was just wondering why router manufacterers always include garbage firmware? Wouldn't it be waaaaaay easier and more cost-efficient to include something like dd-wrt per default? I, for one, would think of standard dd-wrt install as a GIGANTIC selling point for consumer routers.

 

What do you guys think? Am I missing some technical facts here?

[rufee]

Good topic.

I bet that a lot of people have never seen their routers web configuration screen, they just popped in the cd did what they were told to do and the internet works they don't need tweeking and imo that's what most manufacturers expect you to do they just throw that bit of extra stuff you might need (port forward, simple QoS...).

Second point is saving on cost because that's pretty much the only thing you can save $ on.

Why not DD-WRT ? Simple - integration cost, why validate every router model against something that can work or not and just use what works instead.

DD-WRT is not perfect in its own right, i find it a horrible experience using it on any router i installed it on (it lags, web interface crashes often etc...), its flexible yes features are good and it does what i says it does, but its not for everyone.

[MG2R]

1. Why not DD-WRT ? Simple - integration cost, why validate every router model against something that can work or not and just use what works instead.
2. DD-WRT is not perfect in its own right, i find it a horrible experience using it on any router i installed it on (it lags, web interface crashes often etc...), its flexible yes features are good and it does what i says it does, but its not for everyone.

1. Wouldn't it be cheaper to take DD-WRT and modify/patch it to work on your machine instead of building a firmware from the ground up?
2. I honestly have never used it before, I just heard a lot of good stuff about it. I want to try it, but my router ain't compatible... You say it isn't for everyone, but I'm sure that if a company fixed the bugs on their platform, it could be just as easy as the way it works now (e.g. pop in a disc/type in a local url and follow a setup guide)

I'm actually wondering what the economically more viable way would be (writing custom firmware or fixing dd-wrt on your platform)

[neon]

Support reasons, with their own firmware they are fully able to support it, decide how far to take the firmware, if router manufactures just put DD-WRT on the devices then the control is completely out of their hands, if DD-WRT introduced a feature that broke something or demanded too much from the hardware then people would not be happy if they were to update and couldn't use it. The only way it could work is if a router manufacturer took DD-WRT made a version for their own router(s) and made it so only their versions of DD-WRT could be updated.  Also if every router had DD-WRT then one security flaw would affect all the routers of the world, and you know how hard it is trying to force 'people' to update things even if it if free and for security.

 

In what way do you think official firmware is garbage? DD-WRT is nice but it's only really used if you 'need' something from it or for the 'cause-you-can' reason, long as the stock firmware is stable and provides the features that matter most will never need more.

 

I think what we have now is good, routers come with their own firmwares different between manufacturers, but the option for DD-WRT (or Tomato) is there for those who want or need it, there are good lists for routers for people who are buying a new router specifically for DD-WRT and for those people they will have no trouble flashing DD-WRT over the old firmware, for everyone else stock is good enough and most likely best for them.

[rufee]

What i really see is that DD-WRT for me personally is a way to unlock the wireless radio in the router to set up point to point links or make it a client or other stuff, other than that and VLAN's stock firmware can do the same thing.

Sometimes custom firmware disables the ability to use a feature that stock firmware offers (i.e print server) you need to use a custom build of DD-WRT mess around and even then it doesn't work (if printer servers ever worked).

So yeah as neon said its on a need that extra functionality basis.

[MG2R]

Support reasons, with their own firmware they are fully able to support it, decide how far to take the firmware, if router manufactures just put DD-WRT on the devices then the control is completely out of their hands, if DD-WRT introduced a feature that broke something or demanded too much from the hardware then people would not be happy if they were to update and couldn't use it. The only way it could work is if a router manufacturer took DD-WRT made a version for their own router(s) and made it so only their versions of DD-WRT could be updated.  Also if every router had DD-WRT then one security flaw would affect all the routers of the world, and you know how hard it is trying to force 'people' to update things even if it if free and for security.

 

In what way do you think official firmware is garbage? DD-WRT is nice but it's only really used if you 'need' something from it or for the 'cause-you-can' reason, long as the stock firmware is stable and provides the features that matter most will never need more.

 

I think what we have now is good, routers come with their own firmwares different between manufacturers, but the option for DD-WRT (or Tomato) is there for those who want or need it, there are good lists for routers for people who are buying a new router specifically for DD-WRT and for those people they will have no trouble flashing DD-WRT over the old firmware, for everyone else stock is good enough and most likely best for them.

You bring up a lot of valid points.

 

I think official firmware is garbage because I have never ever come across official firmware that isn't

• slow
• buggy
• crashing every now and then
• lagging like crazy
• all of the above

However, my new D-link router seems to be holding up very well (although, I have to restart it every time I change any settings, which is unfortunate).

 

What i really see is that DD-WRT for me personally is a way to unlock the wireless radio in the router to set up point to point links or make it a client or other stuff, other than that and VLAN's stock firmware can do the same thing.

Sometimes custom firmware disables the ability to use a feature that stock firmware offers (i.e print server) you need to use a custom build of DD-WRT mess around and even then it doesn't work (if printer servers ever worked).

So yeah as neon said its on a need that extra functionality basis.

Alright, thanks for your insight (both of you, that is)!

[LAwLz]

Because they aren't? I am using an Asus N56U and the firmware is very good. If we're going to talk about more advanced gear like the Catalyst series from Cisco, then I've never had any issues with any IOS version for it.

The fact that you haven't even tried dd-wrt makes me think that you have used maybe 2-3 lower end routers (probably those that you got from your ISP) and then base your opinion on that, as well as what other people have told you. That's not a good thing to do. Don't make broad generalization when you lack sufficient knowledge and experience to make such claims.

[MG2R]

The fact that you haven't even tried dd-wrt makes me think that you have used maybe 2-3 lower end routers (probably those that you got from your ISP) and then base your opinion on that, as well as what other people have told you. That's not a good thing to do. Don't make broad generalization when you lack sufficient knowledge and experience to make such claims.

As I said: my assumption was that DD-WRT is good. And so far, all router firmware I have personally had the chance to play with (including TP-Link, Linksys, Belkin, D-Link and a couple of ISP standard routers) did either not do what I wanted it to do; did not do it in the way I wanted it to do; or just ouright broke.

 

Yes, I know, I'm generalizing, but as you can tell from posts above, I'm open to other opinions/perspectives.

[LAwLz]

As I said: my assumption was that DD-WRT is good. And so far, all router firmware I have personally had the chance to play with (including TP-Link, Linksys, Belkin, D-Link and a couple of ISP standard routers) did either not do what I wanted it to do; did not do it in the way I wanted it to do; or just ouright broke.

 

Yes, I know, I'm generalizing, but as you can tell from posts above, I'm open to other opinions/perspectives.

What issues have you had with the stock firmware on the routers you have tried?

[MG2R]

What issues have you had with the stock firmware on the routers you have tried?

Couple of examples have also been listed in a previous comment, but here are a few things from the top of my head:

• My TP-link router (with built-in DSL modem) needs a hardware reset every couple of days to reset the modem part.
• Our previous router (Belkin) had a slow web GUI (probably due to a cheap processor and not so much firmware) and very unstable (crashed frequently)
• I also worked on a router that had an unstable web server (ie sometimes, some pages wouldn't load, sometimes they would)
• The router and my grandmother's house (default ISP router/modem combo) is the most restricted piece of crap in the world (port forwarding and dDNS is not available per default, you have to hack your way around the web GUI to make it work)
• ...

As also previously stated, the D-link router I have on my bedroom right now is actualy fairly OK, apart from the fact that I have to restart for every setting I want to change

[LAwLz]

Couple of examples have also been listed in a previous comment, but here are a few things from the top of my head:

• My TP-link router (with built-in DSL modem) needs a hardware reset every couple of days to reset the modem part.
• Our previous router (Belkin) had a slow web GUI (probably due to a cheap processor and not so much firmware) and very unstable (crashed frequently)
• I also worked on a router that had an unstable web server (ie sometimes, some pages wouldn't load, sometimes they would)
• The router and my grandmother's house (default ISP router/modem combo) is the most restricted piece of crap in the world (port forwarding and dDNS is not available per default, you have to hack your way around the web GUI to make it work)
• ...

As also previously stated, the D-link router I have on my bedroom right now is actualy fairly OK, apart from the fact that I have to restart for every setting I want to change

The first two seems like legit complains and related to the firmware. The one about an unstable "web server" might be anything though. There isn't a specific part of the router which handles web traffic, and a more likely guess would be that it was an issue with either your computer, or your DNS.

The last one about your grandmother's router, that's most likely her ISPs fault and not really the router manufacturer.

 

The first two examples might be because the routers you had were pretty bad/low end, or you might have been unlucky, or maybe they even fixed these issues in a future update.

[Blade of Grass]

I have to agree with @LAwLz

Most good quality routers come with good firmware. Cisco and ASUS are two exams of great firmware.

I love my N66u firmware, it's awesome!

[Ethnod]

Not sure why they are all crap but I'd recommend looking at this vid and getting your hands on pfsense

 

 

PS: I'm sure its ok to be plugging Logan here but Linus has not done anything like this that I am aware of, remove if not ok

[rufee]

We are not talking about pfSense here because its not a firmware its an OS.

And i think what MG2R is referring to is low-medium grade consumer routers not the high end stuff.

Id say anything above the 100$ range is less buggy or probably any gigabit router due to better hardware inside.

[LAwLz]

Not sure why they are all crap but I'd recommend looking at this vid and getting your hands on pfsense

 

PS: I'm sure its ok to be plugging Logan here but Linus has not done anything like this that I am aware of, remove if not ok

I am getting pretty sick and tired of this forum jerking off over pfsense whoever there is a chance. In my opinion, pfsense is shit. There is a very, very niche market for it and trust me, 99.9% of the users on this forum do not fit that niche.

To me the whole "pfsense is awesome" reeks of "look at me I am so special and super cool, even though I have no idea what 90% of all the features in pfsense is, and the other 10% is available on good consumer routers". For the vast majority of people (yes that includes YOU), it is better to get a good consumer grade router.

 

Also, I am not really mad at you personally Ethnod. It's just that I see a huge amount of people who got very little knowledge about networking (not talking to you specifically) recommending and using pfsense and think "it got lots of features (that I don't understand) so it must be good!".

 

/end rant.

 

On a sidenote, it's totally OK to link to Razthew0rld here.

[solomongrundy]

I was just wondering why router manufacterers always include garbage firmware? Wouldn't it be waaaaaay easier and more cost-efficient to include something like dd-wrt per default? I, for one, would think of standard dd-wrt install as a GIGANTIC selling point for consumer routers.

 

What do you guys think? Am I missing some technical facts here?

Even though DDWRT is amazing, you still need to  tweak the crap out of it to maximize the performance out of your router.

I've been running DDWRT on my WNDR3300 and the more recent versions have been very stable. I actually use two identical routers in a access point/ wireless repeater bridge mode. And you are also right about default firmware being ass when it comes to stuff like this. The original firmware allows WPS mode but only with WEP security...might as well not password protect the router and let the neighbours have at it.

 

 

I think I'm done with DDWRT capable router as my main unit though...I'm going to try the Apple Extreme router.

[MG2R]

The first two seems like legit complains and related to the firmware. The one about an unstable "web server" might be anything though. There isn't a specific part of the router which handles web traffic, and a more likely guess would be that it was an issue with either your computer, or your DNS.

The last one about your grandmother's router, that's most likely her ISPs fault and not really the router manufacturer.

 

The first two examples might be because the routers you had were pretty bad/low end, or you might have been unlucky, or maybe they even fixed these issues in a future update.

What I meant with the web server: every router with a web based UI has a built-in minimal web server to serve that UI to the user. On that particular router the web server implementation was crap and bugged out. If you did manage to get past that and configure the router, it was pretty ok (not good, but ok).

 

My grandmother's router's firmware is probably by a third party (as is the hardware), but the web UI and available config options are directed and built by the ISP. The low level firmware (e.g. stability) is pretty OK, though. But again, the complete package is crap.

 

And i think what MG2R is referring to is low-medium grade consumer routers not the high end stuff.

Id say anything above the 100$ range is less buggy or probably any gigabit router due to better hardware inside.

Yeah, you have to remember that I'm only twenty-one, still a student and live with my parents, so they are the ones that buy the router/modem. So yeah, they won't spend over $100. Not even close. It's like that with everything technology related here: if I want something decent, I have to buy it myself

[solomongrundy]

i agree. No way in hell i'm going to build a router out of a  power hog of an old pc. And there's no 802.11n support in pfsense...absolutely useless for me and I'm guessing a lot of other people too. 

 

http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Is_802.11n_wireless_supported

I am getting pretty sick and tired of this forum jerking off over pfsense whoever there is a chance. In my opinion, pfsense is shit. There is a very, very niche market for it and trust me, 99.9% of the users on this forum do not fit that niche.

To me the whole "pfsense is awesome" reeks of "look at me I am so special and super cool, even though I have no idea what 90% of all the features in pfsense is, and the other 10% is available on good consumer routers". For the vast majority of people (yes that includes YOU), it is better to get a good consumer grade router.

 

Also, I am not really mad at you personally Ethnod. It's just that I see a huge amount of people who got very little knowledge about networking (not talking to you specifically) recommending and using pfsense and think "it got lots of features (that I don't understand) so it must be good!".

 

/end rant.

 

On a sidenote, it's totally OK to link to Razthew0rld here.

[MG2R]

Even though DDWRT is amazing, you still need to  tweak the crap out of it to maximize the performance out of your router.

Love tweaking

[Whiskers]

I believe it's for several different reasons.

 

1) Artificial barriers. By intentionally limiting the capabilities of their different devices via the firmware they can differentiate their various products more effectively so as to keep each competitive.

2) Support. Having their own specially designed firmware etc allows them to have integrated tools for remote management and assistance etc.

3) Budget. A lot of them probably spend a lot of money already on the hardware. Investing their money into better software would significantly impact profitability - and it isn't as simple as just dropping in something like DD-WRT.

 

Ultimately, it's a necessary evil in some cases. Especially with ISP-specific routers or versions of routers.

[MG2R]

1) Artificial barriers. By intentionally limiting the capabilities of their different devices via the firmware they can differentiate their various products more effectively so as to keep each competitive.

Hadn't thought of it that way. Seems logical.

[Whiskers]

Hadn't thought of it that way. Seems logical.

 

 

It's a bad habit a lot of companies get into, unfortunately.

 

Artificial hardware or software limitations for the sake of product differentiation is very common, much more so than people realise. For example, Siri on the iPhone 4S was actually perfectly stable and functional on an iPhone 4 as 99.9% of the processing was handled server-side. However Apple did not make it available for the older device as they wanted it to be a USP (unique selling point) for their new model.

[MG2R]

It's a bad habit a lot of companies get into, unfortunately.

 

Artificial hardware or software limitations for the sake of product differentiation is very common, much more so than people realise. For example, Siri on the iPhone 4S was actually perfectly stable and functional on an iPhone 4 as 99.9% of the processing was handled server-side. However Apple did not make it available for the older device as they wanted it to be a USP (unique selling point) for their new model.

I know, but it has advantages as well. It allows companies to build one product and then sell it as four different prices catergories, meaning that the lower end model will be cheaper than when they would've actually made four different products. (because of mass producing one single product)

 

You see this often with engines. At our school, we have a DAF truck engine and, depending on what controller board you plug into it, it develops anywhere between 300 and 500 bhp.

[Whiskers]

I know, but it has advantages as well. It allows companies to build one product and then sell it as four different prices catergories, meaning that the lower end model will be cheaper than when they would've actually made four different products. (because of mass producing one single product)

 

You see this often with engines. At our school, we have a DAF truck engine and, depending on what controller board you plug into it, it develops anywhere between 300 and 500 bhp.

 

Yes, but it also means that they are directly ripping off their consumers. It could be argued that they should spend their time and money focusing on making the best product possible for each pricepoint or usecase scenario they're aiming for instead of cheaping out and placing artificial limitations everywhere.

 

Intel have done this in the past. I'm not sure if they still do, but they would make identical chipsets and then solder off cores, add less cache and artificially lower clock speeds in order to differentiate the various models.

[MG2R]

Yes, but it also means that they are directly ripping off their consumers. It could be argued that they should spend their time and money focusing on making the best product possible for each pricepoint or usecase scenario they're aiming for instead of cheaping out and placing artificial limitations everywhere.

 

Intel have done this in the past. I'm not sure if they still do, but they would make identical chipsets and then solder off cores, add less cache and artificially lower clock speeds in order to differentiate the various models.

Intel continuously does this. It's called a binning process. In essence all core i5's, core i7's and a lot of Xeons are exactly the same chip... The difference is that some silicon dies will be able to handle a specific clock frequency, while others can't. Or some have one broken core that can't run hyperthreading. The best and most stable chips are destined to be Xeons.