Today, we at SFC, along with our OpenWrt member project, announce the production release of the OpenWrt One. This is the first wireless Internet router designed and built with your software freedom and right to repair in mind. The OpenWrt One will never be locked down and is forever unbrickable. This device services your needs as its owner and user. Everyone deserves control of their computing. The OpenWrt One takes a great first step toward bringing software rights to your home: you can control your own network with the software of your choice, and ensure your right to change, modify, and repair it as you like.
    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      1·
      16 days ago

      And why only 2 ports? I’m fine w/ being limited to 1gbps uplink because that’s probably all I’m going to need in the near future, but only having one other port means I definitely need a switch to start using it. I currently use three ports:

      • uplink
      • wifi AP
      • everything else

      And having more is always better. Ideally they’d provide 5 ports, and have at least one be PoE (ideally all 5), and I’d be 100% okay with paying a bit more for it.

      I’d rather have more ports and have them be PoE but limited to gigabit speeds than only having one 2.5G port w/o PoE. I could maybe be okay with only two ports if one was 10G, but 2.5G is not enough to make it worth redoing my switch setup.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        16 days ago

        What’s wrong with having a switch? And why build in capability that people aren’t necessarily gonna use?

        The intent of this is to be a cheap but capable homelab router. Building in more ports / integrating a managed or unmanaged switch / adding PoE is only going to drive up cost. BYO is absolutely the answer to “I want more ports” here.

        Literally the ONLY thing they would need to do to make this perfect is to make the LAN port upgradable to 2.5G - anything past that and people are probably going to be looking at more serious enterprise-grade hardware anyways.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          16 days ago

          Having at least one more port makes debugging a lot easier, and it also opens the door to port-based VLANs. If they had three ports, it would be infinitely more useful to me, and any more ports than that is just icing on the cake.

          But only two ports means you have to get a separate switch unless you’ll only ever have the one ethernet device.

          In terms of tradeoffs, drop the Wi-Fi capability entirely and add more physical ports. I doubt the Wi-Fi module is any good (doesn’t even do 6GHz), and it doesn’t seem to be replaceable either. If you’re going for a home-lab setup, you’re going to want more ports. If you’re going for a regular home user use-case, you’d prefer a better Wi-Fi card. Maybe sell two models, one w/ better Wi-Fi (full 6E standard) and one w/ more ports and no Wi-Fi.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            2·
            16 days ago

            Fair points.

            I’d say they could make three versions:

            • a “clean” single-port WiFi-only model but with actually good WiFi hardware (so, 7 if possible; 6e at least)
            • the current model, but with 2x2.5
            • one with no WiFi and at least 4 ports, including at least 2x2.5
            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              1·
              16 days ago

              Yeah, I’d be down with that, and I’d go for the last one. I only need 1 2.5G port, though 2x is always nice to have. The extra gigabit lines would be nice for separated VLANs, like running my camera network (don’t want that touching the net).