D-Link Forums
The Graveyard - Products No Longer Supported => DIR-655 => Routers / COVR => Beta Code! => Topic started by: flailingmonkey on February 21, 2009, 12:57:26 AM
-
I've noticed D-Link has a bunch of its firmware code open sourced, and up on the ftp site. I noticed there isn't any available for the DIR-655, the closest thing to it is the firmware for the DIR-615 (bgn WiFi router, 10/100 LAN not Gigabit, some claim similar but lesser chipsets).
I realize its not likely that this inquiry will cause it to show up, but I was just wondering if there was a particular reason that it isn't available? In other words, what determines which firmware is open sourced?
-
I think the Ubicom core used in the 655 is propriety, which determines the status. Unless Ubicom decides it can be 'opened up' it remains encrypted.
-
Mainly if it runs on Linux, then they will need to opensource it.
-
There are some non-gpl linux firmwares, but usually this is true.
-
I figured that it might have been related to the Ubicom processor in the DIR-655. This is one the reasons cited by people in the DD-WRT project as to why their code will never work on the DIR-655.
However, it looks like the DIR-615, which has its firmware source code released, does have a Ubicom chip as well, though probably a less powerful one. I'm just guessing, based on it having a built-in QoS engine, and obviously I may be wrong.
Since the DIR-655 is a really great Gigabit and (2.4GHz) wireless N router on the market, expanding on its functionalities would be a lot of fun. As it is, I can only hope that we still get new and exciting features in continued firmware development.
-
I am a great supporter of open source firmwares, so I would second the motion to give the Tomato or DD WRT guys a go :D
-
I agree, let the open source community fix all the bugs for "free". ;)
-
Well for what it is worth I agree, I would like to see D-Link sell and support hardware not software.
However that is not the way we do, and have done business for ages past.
As for why you see no DIR-655 code, the previous statements are correct, this product is not running GPL'ed code so we are not required to distribute it due to licence requirements.
-
The Ubicom platform currently does not support the Open Source community. It's less our decision, more theirs. however i doubt we argued about it too much. ;)
-
I wonder what the sales are between the linksys opensource routers compared to Dlinks.. may be a good argument for marketing strategies and revenue.
-
Linksys routers do not perform as good as Dlink. Dlink is a lot smaller company and has chosen a different strategy, they won't prevail against the vast resources of Linksys (Cisco) company.
-
While Linksys has chosen to pair with Cisco, our hardware STOMPS all over ANTHING Linksys can offer. Open-Source is cool, our products are still better. Who knows we might go that way soon. ;)
-
While Linksys has chosen to pair with Cisco, our hardware STOMPS all over ANTHING Linksys can offer. While Open-Source is cool, our products are still better. Who knows we might go that way soon. ;)
In fact that might work out OK. Would take of some load off the firmware dept. when open source geeks do the work for you. ;D
-
I wasn't questioning the capabilities between the two companies. I was questioning the hardware on opensource software compared to non open source.
If the wrt54g is seeing increased sales opposed to it's other hardware that isn't so open-source, would d-link benefit from the same strategy over it's own hardware that isn't opensource.
-
IMHO that group is not that big. So the market for a good performing standard router seems bigger to me.
-
Also I'd wager that 2/3 consumers of networking hardware can barely configure the units as they are let alone open source the units.
I'd also wager that 2/3 American computer users still don't know what Linux is. The Linux community, while growing with the advent of Ubuntu is still a very small percentage of the total whole.
-
So then that leaves 1 extra open source unit sold over proprietary. :P
-
So then that leaves 1 extra open source unit sold over proprietary. :P
Nice try :-)
-
I might also add that the even in the time when the WRT54G was suddenly strong the market due to a relative flood of open source love sauce, D-Link still wasn't hurting for it.
That day and argument is passed, the argument that it saves us on making and fixing firmware is a much better one.
Even that argument is flawed if D-Link still insists on shipping something with our logo on it with the router.
And to think I am on your side on this one, I would like to see a networking company who makes only hardware sometime in my lifetime. The FOSS community is providing more and more of the relevant software, the world should take advantage.
-
So what is being said then that it's not a D-Link product if D-Link engineers are not maintaining the firmware?
I think, both arguments are quite valid arguments, if done properly with corporate vocabulary and pie charts. :P
I'm just not the one to do so, and quite frankly wasn't really making it a serious topic but to stir up some past thoughts that got lost over the time. It's obvious it's not even close as a priority as others, and most likely not even on an old sticky note under the ashes of stale cigerette butts.
-
This is a subject that fits firmly under the heading of "If I ruled the world (or at least the local corperate one)"
-
I am glad to have found out the answer to my question :) The Ubicom CPU in the DIR-655 is why it runs proprietary code.
While we may all wish to play Project Manager, there isn't any real chance of changing policy here, no matter how eloquent of persuasive the argument :P Having any code available between stable releases is a very generous effort made by D-Link and it's programmers. I will continue to appreciate the work, and even more so the feedback to our questions.
Many thanks!
P.S. For those who want to know a bit more about your box, I found some info on the guts of the DIR-655 on smallnetbuilder.com and xbitlabs.com but I'm pretty sure it was based on the A3 or older models, since the teardowns were done in '07. There is a Ubicom StreamEngine 5160 for its processor, Vitesse VSC7385 for the 10/100/1000 switch and an Atheros xspaN AR5008 chipset for wireless. You can easily find more details, just by Googling or searching those sites.
-
Those spec's are a1/2.
A3 brings a fresh new look to this years collection with a realtek switch CPU.
A4 is also looking ravishing with the "realtek" look but has decided to sport the updated Atheros 52XX card. (i think thats the right series, don't quote me.)
-
...don't quote me.
Take THAT!
-
I was tempted to delete that post, but then there'd be no sign of me burning you.
so BURN.
Ha!
I win.
-
Going to lock this one too? Do EddieZ and I have to hand out in varied (Linux) to avoid your overmodding us?
-
And you're both sitting two booths away from eachother?
-
And across a cubeway, it's my new proper name for the hallway between cubes.
How did you know?
-
I have been Über for years, the forum just didn't acknowledge it until just now. Though I intend to quit posting when I get to 1337.
-
Congrats EddieZ! Just noticed you became an Insane Member! You might as well work for D-Link :P Next member level change is at 1337!
Thx, although the rank title can be interpreted in many ways :-\
About working for Dlink....just learned that there are no employee discounts...that s.u.x.
-
Whoever claimed that was wrong, there is one, I just get to "test" as much product as I like for free.
*** Edited by some one for some reason. You figure it out.
-
OK, that'll do. Start the bidding. :D
-
I think this should be reopened. what make me made with d-link now is i have the rev A router and DLINK will not support ipv6 with that router only with the rev B routers. I really think DLINK needs to either offer up this GPL in opensource or offer an IPV6 update for A router users. if Dlink keeps the same model and then changes rev but does not add the same features as B has for A then this is poor support from DLINK. if this is DLINKS practices then i will never buy a dlink router if they continue this poor support practice. >:(
-
I think this should be reopened. what make me made with d-link now is i have the rev A router and DLINK will not support ipv6 with that router only with the rev B routers. I really think DLINK needs to either offer up this GPL in opensource or offer an IPV6 update for A router users. if Dlink keeps the same model and then changes rev but does not add the same features as B has for A then this is poor support from DLINK. if this is DLINKS practices then i will never buy a dlink router if they continue this poor support practice. >:(
There is a hardware reason there is rev. B: IPv6 support requires more than the rev A can handle.
So not so much not wanting to support. You bought it without IPv6 support or the promise of it being upgraded, so don't be expecting features that weren't there (or promised) in the first place. That's just not realistic, you don't marry a 200 pound woman and then expect her to get perfect 90-60-90 size...
And Dlink cannot decide on GPL....they are not the owners of the router OS, they merely license it.
-
That's just wrong. IPv6 doesn't need any other hardware capabilities than IPv4. There is absolutely no technical reason why it should not be possible to give the router IPv6 capabilities, as this is done in software entirely.
Many other router manufactures do so, e.g. AVM has already released IPv6 firmwares for older router models in 2009!
The only reason is, they want us to pay again for a new router to get IPv6 support. I bought my DIR-655 november 2010, I won't buy another DLINK router the next 3-5 years for sure. If the internet is completely switched to IPv6 in the next few years, and a big company like DLINK will let me alone without support, with no access to the internet with a router from 11/2010, then DLINK is just a poor company with no products worth to pay for.
-
thank god i have an 11 year warranty router :)
Maybe he fries one of this days... ::)
-
That's just wrong. IPv6 doesn't need any other hardware capabilities than IPv4. There is absolutely no technical reason why it should not be possible to give the router IPv6 capabilities, as this is done in software entirely.
Many other router manufactures do so, e.g. AVM has already released IPv6 firmwares for older router models in 2009!
The only reason is, they want us to pay again for a new router to get IPv6 support. I bought my DIR-655 november 2010, I won't buy another DLINK router the next 3-5 years for sure. If the internet is completely switched to IPv6 in the next few years, and a big company like DLINK will let me alone without support, with no access to the internet with a router from 11/2010, then DLINK is just a poor company with no products worth to pay for.
You forgot about more internal memory (look at rev b) and even the required size for the router firmware (which in both cases does not suffice for IPv6 to be added to rev A). Kind of critical, wouldn't you say. But if you want to believe in conspiracies...be my guest.
-
DD-WRT it is not support ubicom CPU? So no DD-WRT for DIR-655 B1 ?
-
Just bought a DIR-655 F/W Ver 2.00NA and H/W Ver B1.
Enclosed in the box was a "D-Link GPL Code Statement" and "Written offer for GPL and LGPL Source Code" stating loosely that "... D-Link will provide upon written request ... the source code files via CD-ROM for a nominal cost to cover shipping ... ".
Sooo, it seems like all we have to do is ask and the secrets shall be revealed ...
Has anyone asked?
Chekov
-
Just bought a DIR-655 F/W Ver 2.00NA and H/W Ver B1.
Enclosed in the box was a "D-Link GPL Code Statement" and "Written offer for GPL and LGPL Source Code" stating loosely that "... D-Link will provide upon written request ... the source code files via CD-ROM for a nominal cost to cover shipping ... ".
Sooo, it seems like all we have to do is ask and the secrets shall be revealed ...
Has anyone asked?
Chekov
That's amazing! Someone needs to do this!
-
The new DIR-655 bootlog includes lines like:
info [ 0.220000] Ubicom GPIO Controller
info [ 0.220000] ubicom32_flash_init(): registering device resources
notice [ 3.590000] Creating 6 MTD partitions on ubicom32_boot_flash :
notice [ 3.590000] 6 cmdlinepart partitions found on MTD device ubicom32_boot_flash
info [ 3.470000] Serial: Ubicom32 mailbox serial driver.
info [ 3.470000] ubicom32 rng init
info [ 3.470000] ubicom32 rng started
So it looks like GPL code is now working on Ubicom processor ... or am I misreading this?
-
Would this help you? ftp://ftp.dlink.de/dir/dir-655/driver_software/DIR-655_GPL_code_revb.rar (http://ftp://ftp.dlink.de/dir/dir-655/driver_software/DIR-655_GPL_code_revb.rar)
For some reason it seems it's the source code of it but I haven't had a look at it yet. It's for revision B afaik.
-
I've noticed D-Link has a bunch of its firmware code open sourced, and up on the ftp site. I noticed there isn't any available for the DIR-655, the closest thing to it is the firmware for the DIR-615 (bgn WiFi router, 10/100 LAN not Gigabit, some claim similar but lesser chipsets).
term paper writer (https://thetermpapers.net/)
I realize its not likely that this inquiry will cause it to show up, but I was just wondering if there was a particular reason that it isn't available? In other words, what determines which firmware is open sourced?
Developers cheated and simply rewrote the version number from v1.05 (? 1.01) to v.1.08b2 in the firmware source codes and try to pass them off as the latest version. I asked a question about the technical support of D-link about these “manipulations”.
-
Did you find out anything?
Seems like a old post. This product is EOL now.
I've noticed D-Link has a bunch of its firmware code open sourced, and up on the ftp site. I noticed there isn't any available for the DIR-655, the closest thing to it is the firmware for the DIR-615 (bgn WiFi router, 10/100 LAN not Gigabit, some claim similar but lesser chipsets).
term paper writer (https://thetermpapers.net/)
I realize its not likely that this inquiry will cause it to show up, but I was just wondering if there was a particular reason that it isn't available? In other words, what determines which firmware is open sourced?
Developers cheated and simply rewrote the version number from v1.05 (? 1.01) to v.1.08b2 in the firmware source codes and try to pass them off as the latest version. I asked a question about the technical support of D-link about these “manipulations”.