I just received my GL.iNet GL-MT6000 (Flint 2). I choose this device specifically to run OpenWRT on it, but the dilemma is that it actually comes with an OpenWRT build pre-installed. Should I keep the pre-installed image or flash it with a vanilla build of OpenWRT?
My use case: I've been using a TP-LINK TL-WR1043ND v1 with OpenWRT since 2012. It served me pretty well. I almost forgot about its LuCI web interface, as mainly I dig config files through SSH. The problem with my old device is that it's pretty obsolete by today's standards: no support for Wi-Fi 6, and I also worry about security implications. My SSH clients don't even want to connect to it anymore without lowering the cypher settings. Also my ISP recently upgraded my line to fiber-optic cable, which this device can't utilize. I specifically bought the Flint 2 to replace my old 1043ND, migrating over my old settings. I have sophisticated firewall access rules for IPv4 and IPv6, DHCP preservations, NAT forwardings and the like. I'd prefer to transfer all my existing settings to the new device with as little pain as possible.
I've been running BARRIER BREAKER (14.07, r42625) on my old device, which is goddamn old. One of the reasons I didn't upgrade (while the device was still supported) is fear of breakage – the last time I upgraded, it broke my IPv6 until I fixed it, I even had a nice topic about it on the old forum.
In light of my use case, do you recommend keeping the Flint 2's factory firmware or flashing it with vanilla OpenWRT? Are there any gotchas to keep in mind when migrating from such an old version of OpenWRT?
You won't be able to upload the config from the old device to the new.
You can use the old settings as template when you manually reapply the config on the MT6000.
You would have had this with all devices running a recent Openwrt release.
Why are you asking OpenWrt users this question? Most of us wouldn't even buy hardware unless it is fully supported by vanilla OpenWrt - and we usually don't care what's originally running on it (after confirming basic hardware functionality for ~10 minutes).
Likewise security concerns are paramount these days, you either keep up with the (stable) upgrades (every few months) or you are vulnerable (and hostile entities from criminal enterprises, zero-day market places, to state sponsored agencies are actively searching for vulnerable devices on the net, 24/7), accordingly you should make upgrades easy (confirm that they just work, config files marked correctly, etc.). The tl-wr1043nd v1 is half a decade past its viability (32 MB RAM).
If you prefer the OEM firmware or OpenWrt is your decision to make, only you can evaluate your requirements.
You wont get support from users in this forum if you dont use vanilla openwrt because they dont care about openwrt fork from manufacturers who heavily modified the firmware.
Start with backing up configuration on your old device - it is a tarball, you can peek inside using e.g. winzip.
Then type it back into new OpenWrt.
Flint2 (filogic platform in general) is fully supported by OpenWrt, thus there are no (typically performance) drawbacks using fully open source firmware.
Just to be clear about this, the syntax has evolved and is now drastically different than it was a decade ago. So do not attempt to just "type it back in" as that will (soft) brick your router.
You can treat the backup as a human readable reference for various config settings -- grab the details such as the SSID and passphrase and maybe PPPoE credentials, port forwarding rules, or DHCP reservations. You can then use LuCI (web interface) or the CLI or direct file editing to get those config items into your new device, observing the current syntax and methods.
Like... the OEM also ships an OpenWRT. Maybe I didn't emphasize this unspoken part of my question, I'm wondering how much it is different from and compatible with vanilla OpenWRT. If the OEM build feels like OpenWRT only with a few additions, like how running an Ubuntu server compares to running a Debian server, replacing the FW might be unnecessary. However if I feel the OEM build is restricted in many ways to the point I can't even use OpenWRT guides to manage it, or it even has restrictions what can I see and configure and what not, I'll obviously go with the vanilla OpenWRT.
@psherman has a point here, as I stated that I mainly edit config files by hand or use the CLI commands to edit them and rarely use LuCI, so I could easily interpret „type it back in” like copying back my old config files to /etc/config. (I wish it would be so easy but I wouldn't have done that anyway, because I expect changes in the syntax, also port definitions and some hardware specific settings might not match.) At this point it seems to be a good idea to use LuCI to create the config skeletons and only then use SSH to expand them.
I have the same device since the summer. I tested 3 different firmware versions on it - GL-Inet stable, which is based on OpenWrt 21.02 and closed-source Mediatek drivers, GL-Inet version (based on OpenWrt 24.10 and open-source wireless drivers) and vanilla OpenWrt 24.10. No difference between the last two, but the GL-Inet version with the closed-source drivers seemed to provide better coverage and throughput at my home, so I chose that one. It’s been rock-solid. You could check for yourself whether there is any difference with the wireless or not and then choose which version to use.
Had the same dilemma and chose to run the pre-installed (at that time) OpenWrt 21.02 Snapshot for a while, just "to see" the hw was not faulty. After about 10 days I decided it was enough and downloaded OpenWrt 24.10, installed with no issue at all.
Certainly. Users on this forum will not be able to assist you with modified software, and they are far nicer, more helpful and more knowlegable then any customer service rep I have come across
(Not to badmouth, this is from general experience, I have not had any actual experience with GL.iNet)
Manufacturer version is very butchered.
They have scripts but the scripts don't utilise UCI at all.
So it's like they have chosen Openwrt for the engine and then replaced the entire management system or reinvented the wheel to put it more bluntly.