If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tom's Guide)   Cisco: Hey, sorry about the whole 'forcibly upgrading your router with a poorly designed system and saying we could spy on you' thing. We still cool?   (tomsguide.com) divider line 73
    More: Followup, TOS Agreement, Linksys, Cisco Systems, Standard Model, tin foil hat  
•       •       •

4775 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Jul 2012 at 6:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-08 06:13:10 PM
How about no? Is no good for you?

/Don't own Cisco.
//Don't plan on it.
 
2012-07-08 06:19:19 PM
I've had my eye on one of the newly designed Airport Express Base Stations, so this might seal the deal.

Or I might check if my model of Linksys router can get DD-WRT.
 
2012-07-08 06:26:05 PM
Sticking with Buffalo.
 
2012-07-08 06:27:04 PM
I've got an older WRT160N, so no auto firmware upgrades for me. It works fine, but if it ever gives me issues I'll go with DD-WRT.

I had 2 DLINK routers croak after 6 months. The Linksys has been on for like 3 years without a hitch.
 
2012-07-08 06:28:29 PM
I miss Linksys before they were under the Cisco brand. Now, I'll stick with Netgear.
 
2012-07-08 06:31:52 PM
Well they screwed up on that one...

I think I know where they were going with that... things like, recognizing which games you're playing and which ports needs to be opened for which machines and when. It would be useful for them if they collected that data because then they could set up good configurations to help the user... however... they totally didn't go at that the right way (assuming that is what they were going for at all).
 
2012-07-08 06:45:33 PM

LittleSmitty: I've got an older WRT160N, so no auto firmware upgrades for me. It works fine, but if it ever gives me issues I'll go with DD-WRT.

I had 2 DLINK routers croak after 6 months. The Linksys has been on for like 3 years without a hitch.


My Linksys died after about 6 months, and the D-Link I currently have sucks balls. Just thought I'd share.
 
2012-07-08 06:49:07 PM
Sounds like lies, deception and good old fashioned fraud.

Hang them.
 
2012-07-08 06:52:13 PM

rhiannon: LittleSmitty: I've got an older WRT160N, so no auto firmware upgrades for me. It works fine, but if it ever gives me issues I'll go with DD-WRT.

I had 2 DLINK routers croak after 6 months. The Linksys has been on for like 3 years without a hitch.

My Linksys died after about 6 months, and the D-Link I currently have sucks balls. Just thought I'd share.


The DLINKs worked fine, they just up and died. I figured the first time was a fluke, but after the 2nd died in about the same length of time as the 1st, I spent the extra $20 on the Linksys. It's been on for over 3 years straight. Of course now that I say that it will die.
 
2012-07-08 06:57:41 PM
My Linksys got flaky so I replaced it with a D-Link that I loved. It worked for a few years then died.

I put DD-WRT on the old Linksys and it's been working great for over a year. DD-WRT is great & you should use it.
 
2012-07-08 07:00:32 PM
I had a D-Link DIR-655 that I swore by...until it died about 1.5 years in. Figuring it was a fluke, I ran to MicroCenter and bought the exact same router again. To my surprise, that one died too -- precisely 1.5 years in. Off to MicroCenter again, this time to get a Netgear WNDR3700. What an amazing router -- dual-band, far faster, better signal strength throughout the house, and better speeds. I'll never look back.

/And if this one acts up, DD-WRT here I come!
 
2012-07-08 07:05:11 PM

MadManMoon: I had a D-Link DIR-655 that I swore by...until it died about 1.5 years in. Figuring it was a fluke, I ran to MicroCenter and bought the exact same router again. To my surprise, that one died too -- precisely 1.5 years in. Off to MicroCenter again, this time to get a Netgear WNDR3700. What an amazing router -- dual-band, far faster, better signal strength throughout the house, and better speeds. I'll never look back.

/And if this one acts up, DD-WRT here I come!


I'm open to suggestions and easy to please, so maybe a Netgear WNDR3700 is in the books for me if the price is right.
 
2012-07-08 07:07:31 PM
Dlink going strong for 3 years running no problems, stop buying the $20 router and you'll be fine.
 
2012-07-08 07:20:14 PM
I'm switching all my gear to Belkin and Netgear
 
2012-07-08 07:21:06 PM

rhiannon: I'm open to suggestions and easy to please, so maybe a Netgear WNDR3700 is in the books for me if the price is right.


If you want to see real results, make sure you get the accompanying dual-band Netgear N600 USB network adapter. Unless your computer already has a dual-band (2.4GHz/5GHz) 802.11n adapter. I can stream 1080p HD video from my HTPC to my desktop without a stutter.
 
2012-07-08 07:24:34 PM
That'd be a big ol' "no", Cisco. My hardware, my rules.
 
2012-07-08 07:24:39 PM
There is one answer: DD-WRT
 
2012-07-08 07:25:24 PM
To summarize, he made six points:

(1) Linksys customers are not required to sign-up for the Cisco Connect Cloud service and they are able to opt-out of signing up for an account.


Bullshiat, this ought to be "opt-in." Corporate asshats still control the policy.

(2) Customers can set-up and manage their Linksys router without signing up for a Cisco Connect Cloud account.

But you steer them to the cloud and force them to opt-out. Which again is privacy violating BS.

(3) Cisco will not arbitrarily disconnect customers from the Cisco Connect Cloud service based on how they are using the Internet.

Just will do so according to policy that Cisco already published. This is lawereese BS, and mealy mouthed backpedalling. Fail.

(4) Cisco Linksys routers are not used to collect information about Internet usage.

The policy said otherwise. So one must assume the policy could/will say so again. There has been zero accountability for the privacy assault committed by the policy put in place. It could easily be concluded Cisco is not convinced it was a wrong move, only that it needed "to be better explained."

(5) Cisco only retains information that is necessary to sign up for and support the Cisco Connect Cloud service.

Thats not what the policy said.

(6) Cisco will not push software updates to customers' Linksys routers when the auto-update setting is turned off.

"In response to our customers' concerns, we have simplified the process for opting-out of the Cisco Connect Cloud service and have changed the default setting back to traditional router set-up and management," he added.

Caught with hand in cookie jar, mealy mouthed PR shill said he's really sorry if the publi had "concerns" (code word for it was not Cisco's fault, but the publics) and they've "simplified" the process (taken out the obvious language, for now, but did not actually apologize or promise to never collect privacy violating data or enforce DRM for third parties again, or to cut off service based on a Terms of Service again in the future)


Sum it up: Cisco is still lying and still shady, they just are trying to ride this out til the public doesn't notice. Standard PR. At no point is Cisco promising to never shut off service of customers again, or never to harvest their internet traffic again, or never to make policy based on usage again. All they did was "simply" the language to "address concerns."

I'm still never using Cisco for any enterprise I have a say in deploying, home or work, going forward from this point on. They can suck my left swamp nut. They effed up big and I am forced to conclude they now are being run by scumbag DRM lawyers rather than working for the best interest of their customer's ability to run their customers local networks.

THIS IS MY ROUTER. THERE ARE MANY LIKE IT, BUT THIS ONE IS MINE


Cisco, if you're out there, you should understand there are tens of thousands of certified engineers who are very experienced with your hardware and with your company who you just permanently lost as customers over this lawyer-first move of yours. Think you're too big to fail? We'll see.

Cisco Privacy Violation is my new meme for your company, guys. Enjoy your new found status as pariah.
 
2012-07-08 07:48:57 PM

Harry_Seldon: There is one answer: DD-WRT


While having some interesting features - its an unstable mess of code. I had DD-WRT hard crash on me numerous times and once randomly rebooted and restored wireless back to defaults. Which resulted in an open wifi access point to my home network.

/netgear
 
2012-07-08 07:54:36 PM
No.

Also; looking at the ASUS RT-N65U. Appears to do everything I want (except making me a sandwich). And it has this neat new feature where you can configure it over HTTP. Take a note Apple.
 
2012-07-08 08:09:54 PM

MadManMoon: rhiannon: I'm open to suggestions and easy to please, so maybe a Netgear WNDR3700 is in the books for me if the price is right.

If you want to see real results, make sure you get the accompanying dual-band Netgear N600 USB network adapter. Unless your computer already has a dual-band (2.4GHz/5GHz) 802.11n adapter. I can stream 1080p HD video from my HTPC to my desktop without a stutter.


Thanks for that, looks like I'm covered.
 
2012-07-08 08:15:59 PM
There may be a lot of things the "Cloud" is good for in computing.... controlling settings for local hardware will NEVER be one of them.

Storing, yes... instead of keeping a backup of the settings locally, I can see sending them to a "cloud" - but controlling features on your router? WTF are they smoking on that count? Even for storing, it should be strictly an additional option to saving it via the web control portal as a local file on your PC.
 
2012-07-08 08:16:09 PM
I run an old Linksys router with Tomato Firmware 1.28
 
2012-07-08 08:33:46 PM

gingerjet: Harry_Seldon: There is one answer: DD-WRT

While having some interesting features - its an unstable mess of code. I had DD-WRT hard crash on me numerous times and once randomly rebooted and restored wireless back to defaults. Which resulted in an open wifi access point to my home network.

/netgear

Interesting. Been running it for a long time. Never think about it, just works for me.
 
2012-07-08 08:35:33 PM
My home router laughs at your puny Linksys boxes.

www.all-kom.com
 
2012-07-08 08:42:34 PM
I wonder how often this kind of thing comes down to the legal department saying "put in the terms that we can do anything we want so there are no legal complications" and management goes along with it not because they're evil, but because they're stupid.
 
2012-07-08 08:47:49 PM
There's either two things at work here:

1) Total incompetence. Someone on their end pushed the button on this TOS/Firmware upgrade before Cisco intended. Considering that Cisco is supposedly a "top notch" networking company and that security is supposed to be one of their highest priorities, this seems very unlikely.

OR

2)They had planned on pushing out their firmware/TOS changes and decided to see if they could get away with it. Quietly. Without raising suspicion. When the internet caught fire, they figured they could do a rollback and say, "Sorry, my bad! Everything cool? Because we're rolling this back now but what you just saw was a preview of what we'll eventually implement. So get all your panties in a bunch now, so its not such a huge deal later".

Many companies out there are making money off of your personal information - Someone at Cisco said, "Hey why aren't we getting into that slice of the pie?"

Answer: Because yer the farkING BACKBONE OF THE INTERNET YOU DOUCHEBAGS!!! It's one thing to have Ford, or Nissan say, "Hey, we're going to track what radio stations you listen to so we can feed you targeted ads." It's quite another for the government who builds the roads to say, "Hey, we're installing sensors in the roads that tell us where you're headed, so we can sell that information to other companies. Oh, and while we're at it, if you ever go to a porn shop or a nudie bar, we're going to blow up your car."

Blah Blah Blah

/oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
 
2012-07-08 08:49:09 PM

Generation_D: Caught with hand in cookie jar, mealy mouthed PR shill said he's really sorry if the publi had "concerns" (code word for it was not Cisco's fault, but the publics) and they've "simplified" the process (taken out the obvious language, for now, but did not actually apologize or promise to never collect privacy violating data or enforce DRM for third parties again, or to cut off service based ...


Is that really the mostly likely explanation, evil pure and simple from the eighth dimension? I wonder how long your next networking gear supplier is going to last before they feel your geeky wrath.
 
2012-07-08 09:00:07 PM
We still cool?

Is there any action that a consumer could take that would fall into the "not cool" category? Cisco is pretty much in charge of running everything, thanks to how wired every office and every industry on earth is. What could a "not cool" customer do? Cisco has no competition You can't not-use their equipment or personnel.
 
2012-07-08 09:07:24 PM
We should organize a boycott of any data switched or router by any Cisco product.

See how well that works......
 
2012-07-08 09:26:50 PM
AgentKGB:

I run an old Linksys router with Tomato Firmware 1.28

Ditto... I use a WRT-54G running Tomato as a wireless bridge from the newer Linksys in the basement up to my workroom. Haven't had any problem in the years it's been running.
 
2012-07-08 09:45:37 PM
question on the technical side:

if something in your router config gets screwed up, and screws up your internet access, how are you supposed to get to the cisco cloud site to fix it??

kinda like saying, "my car won't start, so I'm gonna start it and drive to the mechanic to get it fixed"
 
2012-07-08 09:46:32 PM
I've got a WRT54GL running Tomato that's been golden for several years now. I'm thinking about moving up to an N router for my primary, and turning the 'GL into a wireless ethernet bridge for my PS3 (better antennas). Was hoping to stick with another open source compatible Linksys, but I guess that's right out. Anyone have any other suggestions? I've had shiatty luck with Netgear, so I'd rather not go that route, what else is out there that's worth a damn?
 
2012-07-08 09:50:17 PM

Generation_D: Cisco, if you're out there, you should understand there are tens of thousands of certified engineers who are very experienced with your hardware and with your company who you just permanently lost as customers over this lawyer-first move of yours.


This is correct. While we have a lot of on prem Cisco equipment, as each piece fails or is incapable of keeping up with what we need, it will be replaced with something not on the Cisco label. There's very little that technology companies can do to make me reject them from a business perspective, as I realize they're almost all full of shiat and partially evil, but this is a "one, two, and three strikes" at once thing for me.

I will never purchase Cisco for our business again, and I'll resign if I'm forced to. There are many other people who feel the same way as I do.
 
2012-07-08 09:53:01 PM

Bennie Crabtree: We still cool?

Is there any action that a consumer could take that would fall into the "not cool" category? Cisco is pretty much in charge of running everything, thanks to how wired every office and every industry on earth is. What could a "not cool" customer do? Cisco has no competition You can't not-use their equipment or personnel.


This isn't true in any way. Cisco has competition in almost every area. The issue was they didn't use to have competition. I think in some parts of their business they still think this. In their bread and butter, there are a lot of newer routers and switches coming out that compete easily with them. In the past I rejected them because our Cisco equipment just worked, but equipment we've gotten over the last two or three years has not been of the same quality.

/please note, I'm not talking about $100 - $300 routers here. We have a great many digits of equipment
 
2012-07-08 10:01:28 PM
Not enough can be said about the bizarre "we reserve the right to cut you off from the internet if you surf porn" clause...

For this alone, Cisco deserves to be run completely out of business.

From the company's perspective, why include this at all? The only thing it does FOR them is introduce a whole level of liability when a customer is found to have surfed a child-porn site followed up by committing a crime - now the victim can sue CISCO, since they decided it was their responsibility (i.e. took on the liability) to police the user's use of the internet, and if they failed to do that in ANY instance, they could be held accountable, legally. Given the illegality of child porn, the lawsuit would be an easy win for the victims.

The clause was literally a no-win situation.

ISPs have been fighting to prevent such liability. Equipment manufactures get a pass, but including that clause implies they CAN control access to "illegal" sites (whether it is practical or not). Was it thrown in because some Jesus-freaks sit on their board of directors?

I'm baffled by its inclusion, not surprised they have decided not to say a word about it one way or another, beyond removing it.
 
2012-07-08 10:03:13 PM
Cisco could fark up a sunny day.
 
2012-07-08 10:17:09 PM
Yeah, this is pretty much the end of them for me. They didn't promise never to do it again, and their wording really comes across as "you're just too stupid to understand, but we fixed it up for you" rather than a guarantee of proper behavior going forward.

Most important to me, based on their wording I suspect it's still POSSIBLE for Cisco routers to receive updates even if they don't have auto-updates on. Which means that if there are exploits in the update process, there's literally no way to stop it.

At a bare minimum, I would need to see evidence that "auto-updates" really and truly can be 100% turned off. And, of course, that there's no way they can "monitor the router's activities" if we don't use their ridiculous cloud crap.
 
rpm
2012-07-08 10:25:45 PM

JohnnyC: I think I know where they were going with that... things like, recognizing which games you're playing and which ports needs to be opened for which machines and when.


That's already covered with UPnP. Why do they need the cloud crap?
 
2012-07-08 10:48:11 PM

rpm: That's already covered with UPnP. Why do they need the cloud crap?


Buzzword compliance.
 
2012-07-08 11:06:39 PM
LittleSmitty: I had 2 DLINK routers croak after 6 months. The Linksys has been on for like 3 years without a hitch.

I have a set of WRT54GLs, the oldest one is about 6-7 years old.

My connection hasn't been as good as when I first got them, but that's due to there now being about 12-15 other wireless networks in my complex (vs 3 when I first got the things).

Slapped some directional antennae on the router and bridge, problem solved.
 
2012-07-08 11:09:13 PM

LittleSmitty: I've got an older WRT160N, so no auto firmware upgrades for me. It works fine, but if it ever gives me issues I'll go with DD-WRT.

I had 2 DLINK routers croak after 6 months. The Linksys has been on for like 3 years without a hitch.


Do you torrent much? Dlinks have known masssive issues with packet storms and NAT. I haven't used once since about 2002 for this exact reason (that and I need to set up a DMZ for my webserver and shiat)

I'm still running an older Belkin - does me quite nicely although the wireless portion of it is utter crap (not that I give a shiat, got a much better WAP bought to cover the dead spot out the back of the house that does everything)
 
2012-07-08 11:22:40 PM

Professor_Falken: There's either two things at work here:

1) Total incompetence. Someone on their end pushed the button on this TOS/Firmware upgrade before Cisco intended. Considering that Cisco is supposedly a "top notch" networking company and that security is supposed to be one of their highest priorities, this seems very unlikely.

OR

2)They had planned on pushing out their firmware/TOS changes and decided to see if they could get away with it. Quietly. Without raising suspicion. When the internet caught fire, they figured they could do a rollback and say, "Sorry, my bad! Everything cool? Because we're rolling this back now but what you just saw was a preview of what we'll eventually implement. So get all your panties in a bunch now, so its not such a huge deal later".

Many companies out there are making money off of your personal information - Someone at Cisco said, "Hey why aren't we getting into that slice of the pie?"

Answer: Because yer the farkING BACKBONE OF THE INTERNET YOU DOUCHEBAGS!!! It's one thing to have Ford, or Nissan say, "Hey, we're going to track what radio stations you listen to so we can feed you targeted ads." It's quite another for the government who builds the roads to say, "Hey, we're installing sensors in the roads that tell us where you're headed, so we can sell that information to other companies. Oh, and while we're at it, if you ever go to a porn shop or a nudie bar, we're going to blow up your car."

Blah Blah Blah

/oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg


Strongly suggests technical voices were not in the mix when the policy got pushed out. Which says a lot about how much Cisco is or is not an engineering company at this point.
 
2012-07-08 11:22:45 PM
So you can roll back to an earlier release- so what? It still means that if you EVER upgrade to a current release you will be subject to privacy violations.

Here is what they should do: remove the cloud service from the router firmware altogether and offer it as an add-on that requires an additional software install.

Too late for me- I just d/l'd dd-wrt for my router. There was a scarey moment when I thought I had bricked my router, but then it came right back up.
 
2012-07-08 11:28:34 PM

LesserEvil: Not enough can be said about the bizarre "we reserve the right to cut you off from the internet if you surf porn" clause...

For this alone, Cisco deserves to be run completely out of business.

From the company's perspective, why include this at all? The only thing it does FOR them is introduce a whole level of liability when a customer is found to have surfed a child-porn site followed up by committing a crime - now the victim can sue CISCO, since they decided it was their responsibility (i.e. took on the liability) to police the user's use of the internet, and if they failed to do that in ANY instance, they could be held accountable, legally. Given the illegality of child porn, the lawsuit would be an easy win for the victims.

The clause was literally a no-win situation.

ISPs have been fighting to prevent such liability. Equipment manufactures get a pass, but including that clause implies they CAN control access to "illegal" sites (whether it is practical or not). Was it thrown in because some Jesus-freaks sit on their board of directors?

I'm baffled by its inclusion, not surprised they have decided not to say a word about it one way or another, beyond removing it.


The fact that the PR statement does not mention this to me says they aren't even aware of what an amazingly eggregious statement it was to make. Which in turn to me suggests incompetency or conspiracy, take your pick.

With "the backbone of the internet" being cavalier with privacy and apparently being willing to shut your perimeter down over a takedown notice from a third party, I think it can be safely said they have outlived their trustworthiness.

There are quality competitors in all service tiers. Most engineers I've worked with already favor Juniper over Cisco for core gear, and any number of the neato niche appliances out there for things such as call routing or soft IPX. F5 is pretty strong in load balancing.

As a historically important company for the internet, Cisco is without peer (haha see what I did there?) As a relevant company going forward .. there's plenty of momentum and inertia around continuing to sell Cisco to the enterprise. But I fully expect this could be a bit more of a mistake from a company mind-share standpoint than they realize. It might take years to manifest, but if I were Juniper or AdTran or Fortinet right now I'd be drafting statements saying "we will never capture your personal network data" and pointedly remark that Cisco can't be trusted not to.

Unless Cisco completely backs off this ridiculous incursion into areas they apparently have no idea are wrong. Which they have yet to do.
 
2012-07-08 11:49:06 PM
I've now had 4 Linksys routers die on me within 3 years.... I gave up on them.

I have a D-Link at home for over a year and a half now, it's been flawless except for need to be rebooted when I add a new device (or make a serious change in my network) as I use both WEP-2 and MAC address locking for security.

I have a new Netgear at the office, first one was a lemon, nothing but issues for the first weeks with it, got it replaced, and not a single issue with this one, including dual band to have legacy devices on the standard 2.4Ghz, and high speed devices on the 5Ghz.

(I know, the Ghz is not about speed, but it's about separating the new devices that can do N 300,from the older ones with B,G, and N 150 capacity).
 
2012-07-08 11:49:26 PM

gingerjet: Harry_Seldon: There is one answer: DD-WRT

While having some interesting features - its an unstable mess of code. I had DD-WRT hard crash on me numerous times and once randomly rebooted and restored wireless back to defaults. Which resulted in an open wifi access point to my home network.

/netgear


My guess is that you A) were running a Release Candidate or early "mini"/"micro" build, B) were using something like a v5 WRT54G (which is unstable as crap anyway), or C) both.

The early versions of the mini and micro builds were a little unstable, but they've gotten that under control now. Even then, the only time I ever had a problem with them was installing them on v5-era WRT54Gs and so on, which are just AWFUL routers. They're so unstable they can brick the router with STOCK firmware, to say nothing of running DD-WRT. I actually have a v5 in my room right now, waiting to be TFTP'd back into functionality for like the 3rd time. Dunno why I don't huck it in the garbage.

I've NEVER had a problem with anything that can run the full-size builds of DD-WRT, ever. No crashes, no resets, no memory leaks. Install once and forget. Of course since then I've moved on from DD-WRT to building my own pfsense box to use as a router, but I do give out DD-WRT'd routers to friends who say things like "what do you recommend for a good router?". They're user friendly enough that I rarely get asked questions on how to use them more than once.
 
2012-07-08 11:49:35 PM

MadManMoon: rhiannon: I'm open to suggestions and easy to please, so maybe a Netgear WNDR3700 is in the books for me if the price is right.

If you want to see real results, make sure you get the accompanying dual-band Netgear N600 USB network adapter. Unless your computer already has a dual-band (2.4GHz/5GHz) 802.11n adapter. I can stream 1080p HD video from my HTPC to my desktop without a stutter.


And higher model numbers don't necessarily mean better models. I think the 3700 is better than the 3800 if I recall.

Mine has dual band plus video-dedicated on 5GHz. Basically I think I ended up with 4 channels--2 guest and two regular.

And the adapter mentioned above works amazing. Plus, push button configuration for the adapter and other stuff you link to the router.
 
2012-07-09 12:04:24 AM

Generation_D: Strongly suggests technical voices were not in the mix when the policy got pushed out. Which says a lot about how much Cisco is or is not an engineering company at this point.


Maybe not. This could be the first step in their attempt to compete with Aerohive and Meraki, two wireless companies that are pushing Cisco in the enterprise with a "Cloud-based" management console for their controller-less wireless architecture. While it might not be an ideal way to manage your home wireless, it would be a good test platform before rolling that technology out into the enterprise.

Which...sadly...says a lot more about the future of their wireless products if they are going to be based on Linksys gear.

What killed this effort was adding in the Internet traffic filtering. If they would have left this out, it probably wouldn't be a big deal.

/Aerohive FTW
//Will be buying Aerohive for my home wireless when I buy a house
///And maybe a Palo Alto PA-200 as well...
 
2012-07-09 12:11:02 AM
yukichigai : My guess is that you A) were running a Release Candidate or early "mini"/"micro" build, B) were using something like a v5 WRT54G (which is unstable as crap anyway), or C) both.

I have a triad of V5 WRT54Gs sitting in my closet. There is a reason I bought the GLs and mothballed the Gs :P

// had to short pins on one of them to revive it after a bad flashing (such a pain in the ass to open the case), even had to TFTP in to do some stuff. Now it's all GLs all the way and no trouble since.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report