Question on supporting OpenWrt-based firmware

No need to get defensive...

I'll take a stab at who is close (in no specific order...10 is the max I can post) -

@jow
@slh
@hnyman
@trendy
@MK24
@vgaetera
@hauke
@daniel
@Borromini
@moeller0

...and many more who do an excellent job of supporting official OpenWRT.

Those folks have taken the time, and put in the work to become the "experts".

One of the biggest complaints I've heard from ROOter users coming here (and on reddit) instead of your site is not about OpenWRT expertise, but the structure of the ROOter OpenWRT forum.

I've been told they don't know where to start.

1 Like

Mmmh, this sounds a bit like the "knowledgeable person" would owe a response, with which I disagree.

For me anything that is:

  1. not offensive
  2. not SPAM or SEO related
  3. at least peripherally related to the OpenWrt ecosystem

is fair game, whether a question will receive a response however is a different question. But this being a volunteer forum, I am obviously only speaking for myself here, others will have different opinions.

Again, IMHO asking here is fine, assuming being entitled to an answer however is a recipe for unhappiness.

Any significant deviation from civility should be addressed, but at first in polite and civil form (if that does not help, escalating the directness an unambiguity might be in order), that is not what I would call "stepped on hard" (I dislike that phrase it sounds very aggressive to me).

Again I respectfully disagree, sometimes solutions to common problems are already well documented and easy to find by simple searches, in such cases even stating: "please google the terms" is actually more helpful than silence. Sure that will not help everybody but for some posters that is all they need to find a solution.

I did not understand his comment in that way. I tend to agree with you that OpenWrt based projects should definitely help/support those components they add on top of the base, but referring to this forum for questions regarding the OpenWrt underpinning seems fair to me. I do not know about rooter, but the Turris derivative of OpenWrt does a good job at that, with their own forums for their own additions and questions regarding the OpenWrt underpinning with references/referrals to this forum if merited (and some of their team are active on this forum as well).

Well, if you earn money from supporting OpenWrt it seems fair to be expected to not outsource the required research to unpaid volunteers. That however does not mean that asking questions here is off-limits, just that folks might be less forthcoming if they feel they are solving somebody else's homework/work chores.

Simple, unless you come here asking others to solve problems for free that you then would hide behind a "paywall" I see zero problems with you making a living selling customization services...

But again, I am just a volunteer here myself with a limited area of expertise (sqm-scripts mainly and related areas like traffic shaping, AQM, and QoS) so I am only speaking for myself.

2 Likes

When I try to help someone with an issue, I sometimes try the solution myself, or ask for configuration files. If the user is using a different OS, my solution can be invalid in his setup, or his OS might be interpreting those configuration files differently... and this is very frustrating, for both of us.

So, if you ask about how to do something on ROOter, understand that I am completely blind, as an OpenWrt user, and thus cannot help you.

And I do not have the time or the will to try to understand the differences between ROOter and OpenWrt.

6 Likes

These are all people who are OpenWrt experts and keep the whole project running. But my question was "who is an expert in every area of a build?:" You were suggesting that community builds should handle all the problems on their own and not bother this forum. We are talking about handling debugging and maintenance of things like wifi drivers, modem drivers, VPN, Samba and many more. No one is that expert.

The forum is not user friendly in layout for sure. It is just a long thread on a forum site. So we tell people over and over to just ask the question even if somewhere on the thread it has already been answered. You will never see a post telling someone to "search the forum, the info is there".

But how many people come here with questions related to the modem part of the firmware? Very few. Mostly they are people looking for information on something from the OpenWrt part of the firmware. It seems that as soon as someone says "it is ROOter" they are shoved off to the side with things like "ask them about it" even though the question is a valid OpenWrt one. Gargoyle gets the same rap.

That is true only to a point.

ROOter is OpenWrt with unofficial packages added. Gargoyle is OpenWrt with a custom GUI and some unofficial packages. Even ZBT factory firmware is OpenWrt with some closed source packages. Gl.iNet is OpenWrt with a custom GUI and some closed source wifi drivers.

In every case the build is , in large part, OpenWrt. Asking questions about the custom parts of the build should be done on the build's own forum as the people that know it best are there. I don't want people asking ROOter modem related questions here as the experts are on our forum and they may get bad advice from well meaning people.

The same goes for asking questions about Gargoyle's GUI or Bandwidth Management packages. The experts are on their forum.

But if someone has a question about Firewall usage or iptables from the OpenWrt part of the firmware then they should be asking them here. What build they are using is not important as long as the questions are about something OpenWrt.

But it is the only source for general routing questions as they pertain to OpenWrt. It is very difficult to expect people to use Linux forums to answer OpenWrt questions given that there plenty of differences between it and a full Linux.

But what do you consider a "proper" OpenWrt? Does using packages that are on the official OpenWrt list mean the firmware is not proper OpenWrt? Does using a custom GUI rather than Luci make it a bogus OpenWrt?

Where does the line get drawn between what is and isn't considered OpenWrt? I have looked at a large number of factory firmware that use OpenWrt as their base and the core of them is recognizably OpenWrt. All the addons and gimcrack features don't take away from the fact that at their center they are still OpenWrt.

And questions about that core are valid ones to be asked here.

Once people start talking about "proper" OpenWrt I start hearing "only our kind of people" and red flags go up. The moderators here seem quite good and don't cut of a thread because it isn't about "proper" OpenWrt but just the thoght of that is troubling.

They don't owe a response. But if the people who do know the answers don't ever respond them nobody learns and becomes someone who can help out others.

But that isn't what this is about. This is about who should be able to post here. Not getting an answer is just part of this being a forum. Is this forum reserved for only those using "proper" OpenWrt (whatever that is) or can anyone with an OpenWrt question post here regardless of what build the use?

And that is a proper method. Forums are famous for rude, uncaring people who just want to dump on others. Internet anonymity at work. If they don't get stop one way or the other they ruin the forum.

And that is a good response to these types of questions. Showing a search phrase that will narrow things down to a reasonable level is quite acceptable. Or point them to a site you know of that deals with this.

That is exactly how ROOter does it but on a smaller scale. Anything we can answer on our forum we do, even if it isn't specifically about the modem handling system. Sometimes people there know enough about the OpenWrt workings to be able to answer the question. But many times they don't so they get sent here. I don't expect other people here to debug and maintain packages and features that I have produced. That is my responsibility.

Many of our members are also active here, the most notable being @bmork who is the noted Linux modem expert. He helps us with troublesome modem issues just as he does here and all through the Linux world.

I don't expect anyone to do the heavy lifting for my paid work. But there are times when a little help in finding the answers goes a long ways. I bet you'd be surprised at how many post here are from paid people who just don't advertise the fact.

The thing about what I do with custom firmware is that any extra features that I add are of no interest to the average user. So their is no need to hide them. They are all available as Open Source code. Very few people have an interest in a package that sends out random text messages to random numbers at random times of day. But this is of interest to Rural ISP who need to make their SIMs look like they are in phones.

Even things where I may need to come here for help, like doing QOS on a range of IPs, I feel no need to hide this from view. Anyone helping with that is still helping the community.

It is frustrating and you can't be blamed for not being able to answer the question.

One of the problems is that there are many old versions of OpenWrt floating around on OEM routers. Even back as far as Barrier Breaker. Who remembers how to work with those when they were obsolete many years ago. So no one can expect expert help for these.

In the modem router world the favorite is a firmware that uses 17.01. For the most part these are bone stock OpenWrt with some extra packages to handle the modem. Questions about these are the same as anyone asking about a stock 17.01 OpenWrt. But the changes since then make it difficult to answer them as you'd expect.

I, and others, never should be here asking questions about the ROOter packages. You won't have a clue what the problem was or how to solve it. And that is to be expected.

But you should know (hopefully) something about the OpenWrt Firewall if an issue comes up with that. This isn't something custom to ROOter but is stock OpenWrt.

This applies to many of the community and custom builds out there. There are parts that are strictly for that build and should be handled inhouse. And then there are parts that are stock OpenWrt that can be handled here.

Even the crappy OEM firmware has parts that are stock OpenWrt and problems in those areas can be looked at here. problems in other areas are up to the OEM.

Am I supposed to know what is different and what is similar (or what should be similar but is not, because somebody made a mistake), about every variant and every community build?

As soon as I see that somebody is not using stock OpenWrt, I assume their issue might be related to their modifications.

4 Likes

So I've now taken a cursory look at the most recent topics shown when searching for "rooter" and with one exception, people got support and helpful replies. In one instance it was even suggested to use rooter. The one topic where a user was referred to the rooter forum was a question about modifying some AT commands being done, arguably a rooter specific functionality. So... is there even an issue?

About supporting non-vanilla firmwares in general:
Yes it is true that many non-official OpenWrt based builds are essentially just OpenWrt base with extra packages, but generally it is impossible to track all these variants, figuring out their customizations, the specific versions and build flags used by them, potential modifications, backports, custom scripts, startup logic deviations and so on.

Referring questions about these firmwares to their respective support channels (in a friendly manner) seems fine to me, at the very least to let people being proficient with that specific derivate decide whether the presented problem is indeed a generic OpenWrt one or one specific to the proprietary customizations.

About where to draw the line between "vanillaish OpenWrt" and "vendor fork":
Essentially boils down to age of the base system and, like above, the involved subsystems etc. E.g. questions about network dropouts or wireless performance bottlenecks in QSDK cannot be answered in a sane manner as QSDK uses proprietary network drivers, customized wireless configuration, patched hostapd and so on.

If a question touches common OpenWrt aspects on a reasonably recent version of OpenWrt, then it is legit in my opinion.

5 Likes

Personally I feel that pretty anything that wants to brand itself differently and differentiate from OpenWrt, is outside my own interest.

E.g. an Australian project...

THIS IS THE HOME OF THE ROOTER PROJECT , OPEN SOURCE FIRMWARE FOR OVER ONE HUNDRED DIFFERENT ROUTERS THAT PROVIDES EXTENSIVE SUPPORT FOR THE USE OF USB CELLULAR MODEMS IN ROUTERS THAT DON'T SUPPORT THIS FROM THE FACTORY

The ROOter Project was created to allow the use of USB, PCie and M.2 Cellular modems in routers that don't have this capability using factory firmware. The project produces new firmware on a regular basis that allows you to update your router for better support of these modems and to add new router related features.

ROOter came into being in 2013 because of a simple question asked on the Whirlpool Australia forum: "Can I plug my modem into my router and provide Internet for my entire network? And can I see signal information so I can adjust my antenna for better speeds?". The answer from ROOter was "YES".

Even though ROOter is an international project, with contributions from all over the world, it is mainly a Canadian/Australian collaboration and shows its roots on an Australian forum. The ROOter name was chosen to reflect this and the versions of the firmware have been named after something Australia is famous for, poisonous spiders.

Sure, there is later a mention that it is based on OpenWrt, but to me it sounds like it wants to be something else, independent. So, why should I spend my time in trying to figure out if the user's problem are due to something in the underlying OpenWrt or due to the external unknown add-ons/modifications? This is volunteer stuff...

Regarding the vendor forks, like @jow already said, one particular aspect is age. Many of the OEM firmwares or underlying SDKs are based on ancient OpenWrt versions, 15.05 or even earlier. Then the vendors have partially modernised the old firmware base with their own features, so nobody here really knows if the OEMs firmware, based on e.g. QSDK, uses ancient packages and syntax, something resembling current versions, SDK versions, or some completely third-party stuff...

4 Likes

Of course not. But you can help with what is stock OpenWrt.

Do you think that every build changes every section of the code. If I ask about setting up a proper DMZ using Port Forwards and you just going to say "you may have changed the code so you don't deserve an answer".

The issue isn't how this forum has treated ROOter users but how is this going to play out in the future. Many ROOter users posting here don't even mention what build they are using. There seems to be an attitude building that "those other folk" should not be here.

No one expects people here to keep track of every variant but it is usually pretty easy to see which questions are OpenWrt and what are build specific. If someone is asking about ROOter modem features or Gargoyle bandwidth features then it is pretty obvious they are in the wrong place. But if the question is about OpenWrt routing or firewall or such then that is a valid question here.

For build specific questions that is exactly what should be done. But for OpenWrt related problems am I expected to state exactly what build I'm using to see if I fit the right category? Of course not.

Now that is fair and should be understood by all here. As I said before the really old builds don't have anyone that is familiar with them around any more. You could post about it but don't expect an answer.

That goes without saying. If the problem is in an area that is unique to that build then it doesn't belong here. I don't expect or want questions about ROOter's modem features asked here. That is our responsibility and should be on our forum.

And that is exactly the point I'm trying to make. Regardless of what build the firmware uses OpenWrt problems should be welcome here.

So anything that doesn't stand up and shout "I'm OpenWrt" is not of interest? Just because we don't actively brand our firmware as OpenWrt rather than ROOter means that we are on our own? We have never hidden that ROOter is OpenWrt with extra packages. That is why people come here for OpenWrt related problems. Would they do that if they didn't know the firmware was basically OpenWrt?

Common mistake. It's forum is hosted on an Australian site and in the early days it was mostly Australians but I'm Canadian with help from all over the world. The web site is hosted in England.

Once again this is "if you aren't vanilla OpenWrt then bugger off". If you personally don't want to spend time solving someone's problem that is up to you. No one is forcing anyone here. But saying you don't belong here is way over the line.

I totally agree. Really old firmware is just too hard to diagnose. But what about all the community builds that stay up with changes to OpenWrt? Are their problems not welcome here?

ROOter and Gargoyle seem to get singled out as the whipping boys when the subject of non-vanilla OpenWrt comes up. Probably because we are the best known. Even though probably 75% of the code is unchanged OpenWrt. But we get the attitude that "your problems have to be caused by the changes you made so we aren't interested".

Overall I don't see any major problems with this forum. I find most people are helpful and genuinely want to help. And the people here are talented, no question. Compared to many Linux forums this is a dream. No flame wars.

All I'm concerned about is how this will play out going forward.

Apparently expert "enough" to provide the support needed.

Nothing stopping the ROOter community from doing the same.

I would suggest re-reading the post...

Most of your comments have been straw man arguments.

I think I get your point.
Our current Canned Reply (forum function accessible for Regulars only) for cases like this is:

Your post does not appear to be related to an officially released OpenWrt version, package or supported operation.

It is unlikely that you will receive useful input here.

Please seek advise from the relevant maintainer.

I do not particularly like it:

  • it sounds like: "Go away. Now."
  • it is very generalized, users might feel not well recognized
  • it is not very helpful, i.e. leaves the user with the question: What shall I do next?
    If we have additional helpful information, we should include it in this reply, e.g. for gl.inet: "Please ask this question over at the gl.inet forum < link to forum >" or alternatively "Have you asked this question already over at the gl.inet forum < link to forum >?"

I'm all up for suggestions to make the OpenWrt forum even more friendly than it is already :slight_smile:

1 Like

Why?

No one is talking about banning anything.

It's about getting users to the right resources, reducing back and forth arguments on whether it's "official" OpenWrt, and avoiding this forum getting converted into generic networking/router help site.

1 Like

Rough draft...

Your post does not appear to be related to an officially released OpenWrt version, package, or supported operation.

It is unlikely that you will receive useful input here.

Please seek advise from the relevant maintainer.

Please ask this question at < link to forum >

Other resources that may be helpful -

< link to site >
< link to site >

Make it available as a link (site policy, whatever you want to call it) that can be used by anyone who is trying to help.

While I don't really like the tone of the current canned reply either, the content behind its surface is (imho) still right - and adding x+1 variants with different links to the corresponding vendor support fora wouldn't really help a lot either (at least I wouldn't go searching for links).

1 Like

Could go with a "generic" format...

Your post does not appear to be related to an officially released OpenWrt version, package, or supported operation.

Most questions about generic OpenWrt can be answered in our searchable user documentation.

https://openwrt.org/docs/start

Otherwise, please direct questions to the maintainer of your specific firmware.

And, again, am I supposed to know what is stock and what not, for every variant and community build?

Please, understand that I have zero interest in knowing what is ROOter, and what you changed or didn't change. If it is not exactly the same, I will spend zero seconds trying to guess the differences.

5 Likes

Fair enough. How is:
"It is well possible that your issue is related to specifics of your OpenWrt version that this forum knows little about, in that case your version's dedicated support forum might be a more promising place to ask questions."
instead of
"It is unlikely that you will receive useful input here. Please seek advise from the relevant maintainer."

This, I believe, is hard to avoid since it is a generic response to a whole class of more specific questions, enumerating all known variants however does not seem to be a realistic option.

Now we could just in the spirit of best effort list a few well known external variant/version specific support fora/mailinglists.

+1; the only way to keep this as nice as it is is by keep trying to improve civility (compared to resting on our laurels for generally not being a "bad" place already ;))

3 Likes

hmmm...
(obviously depends on what was asked and how but...)

  1. ignore the guy
  2. attempt to spoonfeed them a crapload of low level information for their use case
  3. teach them how to fish...

Not only do I think in most (vague) cases is it a nice answer... it is the BEST answer... all while you just ignored them...


op's question is gray... but imho if there is a

  • symbotic element or
  • the parameters or underlying elements are clearly stated

then I do not have a problem with sincere, well intention-ed reasonable questions from forks, and i'm sure others would agree with that...

the devil is in the details and often how the questions are asked which is often vague

  • I can go to the rooter 'forum' and ask a question about modems and I will get a good or well meaning answer so by all means, people running rooter should be able to come here and ask questions... but it would greatly support their case if they state that they sought assistance from internal support first and clearly identify the underlying elements they are seeking assistance with
  • for other 'forks' if they have activity within the community, same thing... its symbiotic... sure it consumes forum time but that time or wasting of it in some cases is semi justified by the effort put back into helping the distro / others...

if the fork has;

  • no support avenue
  • no reasonable level of symbiosis
  • no clearly ascertainable elements of the question to any current part of the OpenWrt codebase

I have no problem given the user a 'what-for' and letting them know that their question may be stale, asked to someone with more relevant knowledge or whatever...

The canned reply says 'you may not receive any useful input' not 'go away and never attempt to ask a question here', and i've posted it to people seeking support with old OpenWrt versions and trying to do custom stuff... It's not a witchhunt on custom forks... it's a reasonable boundary and informational message letting a user know what they are asking is likely outside the bounds of what most people of the forum have specific knowledge about...

1 Like