Talk:Linksys WRT54G series

message: I am sure we have all seen the recent AFD that was placed on this page.  The subsequent discussion resulted in a keep however, significant concerns were raised regarding notability of individual products, and thus those products having thier own wikipage.
So in an effort to substaintiate the notability of this product, we need to get the following in some sort of term that complies with wiki policy.
This modem in particular was the catalyst for the open source firmware projects for many routers.
http://www.oreillynet.com/etel/blog/2003/07/is_linksys_shirking_the_gpl_ma.html is a summary of an individuals fight to obtain GPL'd code from Linksys which they had previously neglected to supply thus breaching GPL licence.
this link
https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/6/7/164 is  a significant discussion regarding the action taken to obtain that source and thus allow people to rewrite, debug and improve upon the original linksys code.  One might say that it was this action with regard to this particular router that allowed such projects as DD-wrt to exist at all.
I would argue this is notable with regard to this router becuase it was the catalyst, in that it was user "hacking" to expose the firmware and reverse it (which at the time it was done probably breaching linksys's licence) exposed the fact that the firmware was actually Linux 2.4.5 as well as another Opensource project Busybox.  I would invite someone with a little more familiarity with this history to compose a paragraph for the article with references to this event.  While people using and failing to comply with GPL is common rarely has it resulted in such a huge uptake of a product with the specific aim of removing the supplied interface and completely re engineering it.
benjicharlton (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability and the WRT54G models

message: I noticed that the later versions of this router have lower speed and RAM. Does this mean the later versions are actually weaker? I need to buy a new router because my current one is ont he fritz
:I can't imagine the difference betwene 200 and 216 mhz is going to make much difference, probablly just means they wen't for a slighly different model of CPU. I've heared reports that the VxWorks based versions should be avoided though (e.g. if you wan't a new one now then get a GL) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plugwash (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about speed/RAM

message: This serial number is showing up in eBay auctions. Does anyone know the specs for it? --Feanor512 05:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CGN9 

message: If trying to access WRT54G.net via my WRT54G (no idea which version... where to check that?), I get a host not found error. The site works from elsewhere...
--Anonymous 14:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To check your hardware revision number, pick up your WRT54G and look for the large, silver sticker.  Somewhere on this sticker it will read something like "WRT54G ver. 1.1" (as on my router).  As for the website you mentioned, I have no trouble sccessing it with my DSL setup.  Maybe it was a temporary site outage? — EagleOne\Talk 21:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...it's not true, there must be something else the matter with your configuration (tried it from multiple WRT54G(L)s). --145.99.213.194 19:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WRT54G.net blocked by the WRT54G

message: Is there any way we could keep the notes that were edited out here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WRT54G&diff=42660905&oldid=42644088
Maybe a link to another site with these notes or something. I found these really usefull, but I understand how they can be considred inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Sharky 03:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  iPod notes. 

message: All over the web, reports have popped up that Linksys has (already!) seized production of the WRT54GL in a sudden reversal of course (as this product was intended to supply Linux/third party firmware-enthousiasts when they introduced versions of their products that would no longer support linux/third party firmwares).
See  this topic of the DD-WRT forum for example.
However, personally it is still unclear to me whether it is just generally believed that the WRT54GL is no longer being made, or if this is a solid fact.
I think that IF this is a solid fact, there should be an addition to the article, firstly describing how and why Linksys introduced the GL in the first place, and then describing it's retirement. --SausMeester 22:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRT54GL no longer produced by Linksys? 

message: Hi peeps,
I just made an edit in regards to the speed of WRT54GS v2.1. It's CPU speed is actually 216Mhz and not 200Mhz as previously mentioned. I got the data off my own router.
Regards,
Adi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adisor19 (talk • contribs) 18:39, June 21, 2006  (UTC)
IIRC this was actually a firmware upgrade workaround from linksys to fix hardware reliability problems which disappeared when the CPU was overclocked to 216Mhz from 200Mhz.  I confirmed this with different firmware versions for my own WRT54GSv3. Jaqie Fox 02:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRT54GS v2.1 

message: Hallo.
would anyone know if this router supports PPPoE?
i am looking to purchase one and PPPoE is necessary component of the possible router.
thanx.
Alex.
Yes, at least for the WRT54GL.  --Designatevoid 17:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PPPoE 

message: The downloadable firmware for the WRT54GL from the Linksys site  says that it is version 4.30.2 but when you install it the firmware version is 4.30.5.  I updated the page to state that the 4.30.5 version is the latest available for download.
--Designatevoid 17:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRT54GL Stock Firmware Discrepancy 

message: How call this router without DHCP, with a fixed IP? What is the IP of this router?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.9.42 (talk • contribs) 
* Its default IP is 192.168.1.1, as far as I remember. — JeremyTalk 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The IP of this ? 

message: Can someone please tell me (or mention in the article) how to tell what version of the hardware a WRT54G router has please? Thanks, --User:Rebroad 20:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you find out what hardware version you have please? 

message: Renniy (a suspected sock-puppet) and a number of anonymous IP addresses has been reverting some relatively minor but important points about a number of distros. Can someone set me straight on these issues: 
# The DD-WRT article says that it was based on Sveasoft, but is now based on OpenWRT. But is there a paid version as well as the free one?
# Are old versions of Sveasoft available for free?
# Are Tomato and X-Wrt minor or major distros?
That last one is pretty subjective.
It would be really nice if we could stop this petty fighting and get down to the facts. Engaging in edit wars with multiple sock-puppets just muddies the waters and does not help the situation. --Imroy 16:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Renniy's edits are highly suspicious as he attacks other editors, removes bad info about Sveasoft and chnages DD-WRT info to make it seem that DD-WRT is still based off Sveasoft. Renniy if you want to get anything done you're going to have to discuss it on the talk page first as you have about 3 or 4 editors reverting your changes on sight. BJTalk 17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't really matter what it is based off, unless you have a source that backs up what your saying we go with what the offical source says and they say it is based of openWRT. BJTalk 18:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the source code itself is self-documenting. The userspace code is from Alchemy (which is itself an extension of the Linksys code) and the kernel a modified Linux-MIPS kernel with additions from Openwrt RenniyTalk 18:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Still that is OR, unless you can find a reliable source that backs up your claims it should remain as it is. BJTalk 18:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No idea about anything with DD-WRT and Sveasoft, but moved Tomato to a major project.  For example, it's clearly become one of the most popular firmware projects on linksysinfo.org. Mr. Zarniwoop 18:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree it should be a major project as all the minor projects are just forks of bigger projects. BJTalk 18:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  Tomato has been around for just a couple of months. I agree it could become a major project but needs more time. I guess HyperWRT could be considered a minor project now as it seems many HyperWRT users have hopped from HypertWRT to Tomato since Tofu wrote both. I think Tomato needs to be around longer before it is considered a major project. RenniyTalk 18:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also it has it's own page, also making it "major". BJTalk 18:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fon, Coova, and a couple of others have their own pages but I don't see any of them as major. Let's leave Tomato where it is (major). We can move it if it isn't receiving the same attention in a couple of months. RenniyTalk 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page on Fon is about Fon not the firmware and Coova doesn't have a page that is a external link. BJTalk 18:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Renniy, you'd get more credibility if your ID had more of a history instead of just showing up a few days ago after an edit war and then a single-minded focus on editing WRT54G and Sveasoft.  It gives the impression that you have an axe to grind. Mr. Zarniwoop 21:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mr- Zarniwoop - I see you are also a newly registered member. I'm just a RedSox fan. Don' take it personal. RenniyTalk 22:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I've been editing Wikipedia articles with this ID for almost a year now.  And have contributed to the Red Sox article, actually.  You showed up a few days ago after an edit war and focus purely on Sveasoft.  Hence my advice to you.  Mr. Zarniwoop 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renniy's edits 

message: It should be noted that the vlan numbering is different from version 1 and 1.1 they are in fact in reverse order.
this can be seen on the OpenWRT wiki http://wiki.openwrt.org/OpenWrtDocs/Configuration#head-b62c144b9886b221e0c4b870edb0dd23a7b6acab
with comments written "LAN is ports 0-3, WAN is port 4"
-Rip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.122.192.126 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRT54GL Version 1 and 1.1 Differences. 

message: The article talks of CPU speeds, but not what archetecture of CPU it is. I'm pretty sure it is MIPS based. Perhaps this should be confirmed and mentioned?
Done. --68.0.120.35 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What CPU? 

message: Should it really be noted if it's uncertain information? I'm removing this section as of now, until something certain can be reinforced. You wouldn't find uncertainty in an encyclopedia article. JavaDog 01:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRT54GR 

message: I noticed the CPU speed chart has a smattering of 200 and 216Mhz for the same CPU.  As per my own research and personal experience with several WRT54G and GS versions, Linksys released a firmware upgrade a year or more ago (IIRC) that overclocked the 200Mhz series of CPUs from 200Mhz to 216Mhz in order to fix a hardware reliability problem.  I feel I am too new to just edit the main page to reflect this fact, but I feel that listing the speeds haphazardly like that is counterintuitive and counterproductive.  I don't care whether it lists the firmware-upgraded speed (216) or the stock speed (200) of the chip, but shouldn't the article at least be consistent?
Jaqie Fox 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My $0.02 is that the speed reflects the operating speed of the device, not necessarily the manufacturing speed. If the company is selling units at 216 Mhz, it's obviously safe (or even better than at 200). If anything, the 200 Mhz units are under-clocked. I think that there's enough notice about the 216 Mhz phenomena that the people who actually care about the speed will want to know that their unit might not work at 200 Mhz if they tweak something on purpose or otherwise. Just a thought. I'm just a user. --btrotter 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPU speed chart not consistent 

message: I have lots of  ports on my WRT54G V5 router open for numerous family software applications that are all on one computer and I would like to isolate these risky activities from the rest of my network.
I recently read I could use two routers, plug one router into another,  assign each a different starting IP address (such as 192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.1). Then attach my at-risk PCs--to the router that's directly connected to my broadband modem, and all  other computers to the second router.
Internet traffic to and from the unsafe PC area would then not reach my secure subnetwork at all.
I currently use a WRT54G V5...does buying a second one and using it as described make sense? It sounds like a rather inexpensive way to add security to my network.
I assume the second router gets connected from it's internet jack to one of the port jacks on the first router? Is there anything else that would need to be changed or set in either router to make this work?
Can I please ask if u respond to try and keep your response at a level that a non expert could understand.....I would really appreciate it!
Thanks for everyones advice!
Evetsmd 13:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you're new here, I should point out that Wikipedia is not a support forum. We are here to write encyclopaedic articles and these "talk" pages are here to discuss issues with said articles. This is not the place to ask for technical help. Since I'm not a complete bastard, I will say that a second router is likely unnecessary and suggest you read up on routers, firewalls, possibly even DMZ's and VLAN's. But that is all I will say. I suggest you find a more suitable forum to ask questions. Thank you. --Imroy 14:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using 2 WRT54G's for added security 

message: Part of my contribution was removed on the basis of it being link spam. As a newbie to wiki's I suppose a mistake or two is to be expected. I am however confused why external links to worldspot.net, wifitastic, tarifa etc etc are 'OK' whereas my link to skyrove.com was not OK. Was it the location or way I did it that offended?
I was simply trying to ensure reference to all known wrt54g software projects appeared in the wiki and one I know of is missing. I am not associated with or benefit from skyrove.com, just trying to be a good wiki citizen without success apparently.
JPWhiteFitMan 00:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam link removal 

message: My addition to the page was removed, why? I added CoovaAP to the list of third party firmwares, because IT IS. Why was it removed?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlanmac (talk • contribs) 
: I removed it because you are spamming. Please stop adding links to your own website. (Requestion 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why delete content?

message: Hey,
Sorry if this is not the right spot, but I noticed no mention of the WRT54G EU? Is this a new model, or something else from Linksys? Recently purchased it of Komplett.ie.
Cheers.
Sully 00:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WRT54G EU

message: Clarified table, the antennas on the v8 are not "fixed" per se. The antennas can be reoriented, they just can't be unscrewed for upgrades like older revisions the unit. I own this unit, here's a link to confirm the antennas: verify http://forums.linksys.com/linksys/board/message?board.id=Antennas&message.id=102
CarstenKlapp 14:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WRT54G v8 Antenna

message: this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linksys_WRT54G_series&curid=1151761&diff=142961479&oldid=142531520
adds "CDFG" as a number. While this may be possible, I doubt it as that does not go with the hexidecimal numbering scheme linksys uses.
Someone want to verify this either way?
Jaqie Fox 03:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: CDFG?

message: I have a linksys router and I found this reference book today, it has 386 pages, looks very well researched, with lots of internal diagrams, and very technical detailed. This is the only published book I've seen on the subject. Its very broad coverage of available firmware. 
*Title :- Linksys WRT54G Ultimate Hacking
*ISBN: 978-1-59749-166-2
*Copyright © 2007 by Elsevier, Inc.
*Authors Paul Asadoorian & Larry Pesce
*Publisher Syngress
--Joewski 05:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New book - Linksys WRT54G Ultimate Hacking 

message: This was tagged for expansion in April.  As of July, it's one of the more comprehensive technical articles on Wikipedia, and has seen much editing even this month.  As to original research, I would concede that much information in this article might not be found anywhere else in a single page, but that all of the information can be verified by collecting the research of others.  Nothing on this page appears "made up".  This page might be an "original collection" of research, but not by any means a collection of "original research."  Finally, this article is very good and covers a very popular subject.  It's a perfect example of why Wikipedia exists in the first place.  Marc W. Abel 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I removed expand and original-research tags 

message: My router is a WRT54GL, as reported by the administration tool -- however, the stickers on the unit say it's a version 3 WRT54G. (This is why I've never been able to upgrade the firmware till now -- I didn't notice the model number the utility was reporting.) Is this an isolated incident, or have other people also reported mislabelled routers? CarrerCrytharis 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mislabelled unit 

message: Although this may be covered elsewhere, it may good to mention in the Performance section why overclocking is even done to these routers. Does it make it more responsive (faster ping times) and allow more simultaneous throughput? Or is it more useful when running applications (such as web servers) on the router? Someone who has the answers, please drop a sentence in. Thanks. Slippyd (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance Section: Overclocking 

message: Hi. I've read through the article trying to see if there's any mention about this version of the product that is sold here in Brazil named the WRT54G-LA. This nomenclature causes a lot of confusion, and the wikipedia article also does not shine any light on the subject. In fact, not even the Linksys home page has information about this product. I don't know if it's a WRT54G, with VxWorks and only 2MB of flash memory, or if it is a WRT54GL, compatible with Linux, with the possibility of using third-party firmware... Does any one knows the answer to this issue? Perhaps it would be good to update the article with information regarding these locally released product versions, so that people overseas would be able to tie the local product with the "official" released products. Loudenvier (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRT54G-LA (does anyone knows in which product this latin american release is based. 

message: They are blocking wifitastic from being created as well. Wiki isn't what it used to be.--Ron John (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is exactly as it used to be. Whoever keeps creating the wifitastic article cannot show notability, so the article gets nuked. They did it so many times instead of create and nuke, creation of it has been banned. If you reckon you can show notability then you go over to deletion review or whoever, and then you will be able to create it. What Wikipedia does and thinks has nothing to do with the Linksys WRT54G series - hence why the comment keeps getting reverted from there. Wongm (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Why not draft the article in your user space (User:Ronjohn/Wifitastic), get it into a ready state and then ask for feedback from User:NawlinWiki and others? I'll be happy to provide feedback, just leave me a message on your talk page when it's ready. One question, though: Are you affiliated in any way with Wifitastic? --Clubjuggle T/C 12:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: When articles have been deleted, unless they were abusive or similar, you would usually be able to get a copy put in your userspace on request. —Reedy 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: wifitastic

message: Perhaps it's worth pointing that there's a new "open source router" out there?
http://www.netgear.com/Products/RoutersandGateways/GWirelessRouters/KWGR614.aspx
192.114.175.2 (talk) 10:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netgear KWGR614 

message: is one to receive a wireless signal, and the other for broadcasting?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  why the multiple antennae? 

message: If you want to tell which model you have, you can:
Look at the device for markings 
or
Login remotely if you have an alternate firmware and run a command shell to use the command:
cat /proc/cpuinfo
Full Decent (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differentiating 

message: I just wanted to say that this article is fantastic. The amount of information included here is extremely invaluable. This article shines like a gem. Those working on this article, you deserve to know that.
Resistordie (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback about this article in general

message: This is an excellent article and has a huge amount of very valuable information.  I would find the addition of the Power Requirements and Power adapter information very useful as well.
-jeff  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.1.199 (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Power adapter Information 

message: That's interesting, a search for "web" yields very little (See "Default settings" section), "hypertext" returns nothing. Shouldn't this article say that its configuration is through a web server? And BTW, which web server software did they resort to? --Jerome Potts (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web interface 

message: I see no mention of the port speeds.  MB/sec or GB/sec.   Shouldn't that be an obvious thing to include? Jmatxx (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello there!  Very good point, got the article improved, please check it out. — Dsimic (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interface Speeds Missing