Can you name a single routing appliance or router-first operating system (i.e. not a big-distro that happens to run as a router, but a system that is intended to be used purely as a router) at any level (consumer --> highest end professional grade equipment) that actually has a built-in graphics stack to run a full fledged graphical UI?
I guess you really want one ? There you go http://www.tinycorelinux.net/
21 MB in total with GUI. Can be modified as router with few packages I suppose.
But it is not a 'router-first' operating system, right? Is there an example of a system that is designed from the ground up for routing that has a full integrated GUI?
So I don't see your valid argument here and what that matters.
Both of you were stating it is impossible hard to fit, or drivers were impossible etc.
Note that difference of tinycore with gui is 21mb and without gui 16mb - 5mb difference. So in 5mb they fit drivers and gui. So that "never" would be possible seems very likely if tinycore can do it. And yet I remind you that's about PCs and Laptops, while if this is squeezed more it may fit into 16mb flash router 5mb gui/drivers 11mb remainder for rest of OWRT, but this is not what, nor I guess other people require that ATM.
Unclear whether you’re trolling or not, but bring in xorg greatly increases your attack surface.
See the CVE list for xorg https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-88/product_id-8600/X.org-Xorg-server.html
No one wants something with these types of vulnerabilities at their border
No I'm not trolling.
First of all Xorg is not X and I recommend you to read what does what.
Oh please enlighten me on how you run x windows in Linux without xorg!
As much as you don't see my argument, I am similarly not seeing the reasoning that you are applying here insofar as you could use a non-router-first OS and add router packages if you really need a GUI onboard. In many ways, running a webserver and thus offloading the graphics to devices that already have great web browsers is way more convenient and much more likely to be utilized than an on-host GUI because it means that you can administer OpenWrt from pretty much anywhere (provided you have network access).
it's not impossible in the broad sense, but it would require so much work as to not be worth it. Silly analogy time... after a serious accident, the reason a car may be declared 'totaled' is that the work and costs involved in repairing it exceed the value of the car or any reasonable return on investment when you could just buy a new car faster and for less money than the repair. The same is true for rearchitecting OpenWrt and adding all the required dependencies and building an actual GUI stack that would in the end just run a web browser (oh yeah, you need to build a web browser or make sure all the dependencies for an existing browser are met, too) to be able to access LuCI. Once you're start thinking about the amount of effort (and further realize that those efforts can only target x86 and SBCs that have actual graphics chips which is probably a minority of devices actually using the OpenWrt*), you end up facing the conclusion that general purpose/full big-distro OS's already do all the graphical stuff and can do the routing with the addition of the appropriate packages and/or configurations. The only situation where you might undertake such efforts for a car would be if it was truly a one-of-a-kind (even 'priceless') model -- take for example the actual prop car DeLorean from Back to the Future which had fallen into disrepair and was restored not long ago. But since plenty of OS's exist already targeting all sorts of preferences and capabilities, doing this on OpenWrt would be a pretty good embodiment of 'reinventing the wheel.'
If tinycore is interesting to you, install the routing packages -- a lightweight OS like that shouldn't burden the hardware and so it should be able to achieve high routing performance. Or the big distros will also work really well.
Anyway, my guess is that if you want OpenWrt to contain its own full stack video subsystem, you'll probably need to be the one to make that happen, or you could use a general purpose distro and set it up for routing.*I will admit that I don't have statistics to backup my assertion that graphics-capable devices running OpenWrt are the minority, but anecdotally, the devices we see here tend to be heavily biased towards the all-in-one wifi router category and we even see requests from people who want to run OpenWrt on more modest hardware than is currently supported.
Definitely it will be faster with LXC, and this was one thing I did as "proof of concept"
Xorg is implementation. Have you heard of https://www.xfree86.org/ - another Linux implementation.
In windows it is Xming..
Again the list you sent is totally not something I would be afraid of since the X servers are usually (and have to work) on Localhost. I can you give access to my LAN network and if you break it with any of the vulnerabilities you mentioned I'll give you a billion. None of these could be network vulnerabilities as you have to break my iptables first, then break the IP protocol and how ports work in general.
Even the greatest hacker haven't done it AFAIK (without any man-in-the-middle attack).
So, yeah running X on BGP is 0 security concern if your localhost is protected.
Not to mention that pure IPv6 secures everything under a firewall and there are no private IP addresses so everything will be exposed to BGP (that's what expected in near future and already happening).
Great job there. Can you share what performance do you get from USB3 and WAN/LAN speeds?
2nd question - Openwrt has it's own kernel, so how does this work in LXC if it shares the system kernel ? Like I imagine getting hard error if I put my OWRT image inside LXC because the kernel is different..
What error you got? I agree that kernel is different but in my case I believe the kernel features on my R6S shall be more than the original OpenWrt one so it should cover most use case.
This topic was automatically closed 10 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.