1) OpenWrt software has decent support for NAS-on-router, unfortunately OpenWrt hardware didn't make use of that.
2) OpenWrt hardware has non-replaceable wifi for which OpenWrt simply takes upstream drivers with no investment on their part, not even as much as DD-WRT which have Broadcom drivers working. This makes it e-waste almost immediately.
I think:
- They should abandon hardware entirely.
- If they don't abandon hardware, at least target the router+NAS(+home server) niche, not make a router that's even more hw-crippled than most.
If you look at this webpage [1], where OpenWrt One was proposed and voted for, the intentions are weak and the result doesn't even match those intentions, while the list of what it wasn't intended to be, is exactly what was needed.
1) OpenWrt software has decent support for NAS-on-router, unfortunately OpenWrt hardware didn't make use of that.
2) OpenWrt hardware has non-replaceable wifi for which OpenWrt simply takes upstream drivers with no investment on their part, not even as much as DD-WRT which have Broadcom drivers working. This makes it e-waste almost immediately.
I think:
- They should abandon hardware entirely.
- If they don't abandon hardware, at least target the router+NAS(+home server) niche, not make a router that's even more hw-crippled than most.
If you look at this webpage [1], where OpenWrt One was proposed and voted for, the intentions are weak and the result doesn't even match those intentions, while the list of what it wasn't intended to be, is exactly what was needed.
[1] https://openwrt.org/voting/2024-01-openwrt-one