On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 03:00:05PM +0000, Brett Parker wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 02:44:08PM +0000, samwise wrote:
On 24/11/2007, Adam Bower adam@thebowery.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 01:42:35PM +0000, samwise wrote:
A happy medium for those comfortable with the command line is an off-the-shelf router flashed with openwrt.org or, if you'd prefer a decent web GUI, then dd-wrt.org is an alternative open source firmware distro.
AIUI dd-wrt (still) = evil. They released a commercial version and won't supply GPL sources (AIUI) you'd still be much better off (imho) with a copy of openwrt and use x-wrt as the web interface.
Adam
The X-wrt GUI interface is really not in the same league as DD-WRT yet, unfortunately. Probably won't be, until a while after Kamikaze stablises.
DD-WRT sources are here: http://svn.dd-wrt.com:8000/dd-wrt/browser
There's a lot of FUD around DD-WRT, I think - IMHO, it's a better bet for those who want to be able to customise a lot, without resorting to telnet.
telnet?! TELNET?! What?! Who would leave an openwrt router running telnet... first thing you do is replace that with an ssh daemon. Sheesh. People these days.
It still appears to be be norm for many routers, as long as it only allows connections from 'inside' (i.e. from the local subnet and not from the outside world) then I don't really see a problem. That's certainly the way my Speedtouch is (and I think it defaults to this).
OK, you're talking about a PC running as a router I assume but the same applies doesn't it?
I still don't understand why people want to configure a router via a web browser... then I'm not entirely sure that I understand why one would be running a webserver capable of CGI on a router... security risk! Run as few services as possible... that's what routers are for, routing...
Because configuring via a CLI frightens some people off? Again talking of my Speedtouch the Web interface provides the basic 'home user' setup facilities and the CLI offers *everything* you could possibly want.