Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linksys Releases GPLed Code for WRT54G

Comments Filter:
  • by draziw (7737) * on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:51PM (#6379997) Journal
    It's nice that you can see the GPL bits running on their box (Hey running a 2.4.5 kernel) - but it doesn't give you drivers, or scripts, etc. :(

    No I don't think they need to provide the other bits, but it sure would be nice to get some 802.11 drivers, etc.

    --
    +1 Karma bonus due to GPL Love & Low User ID.
    • by 1010011010 (53039) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:59PM (#6380043) Homepage
      Yes, it would be nice to get the "Secret bits," like drivers, but this is actually better for the community in the long run. Why? Because Linksys will have released the GPL parts publically, without losing control of their "I.P." or the "I.P." of companies providing components for this product (if any).

      "Viral" GPL gobbling "I.P." like pac-man with melanoma? Not really!
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:32PM (#6380185)
        Agreed. It makes good engineering sense too. By leaving the kernel unmodified, it removes a maintenance headache. Engineers can design their IP to interface with the kernel in the standard way. The kernel then becomes a "black box" and is decoupled from the internals of the company's IP. It allows for a more modular and maintainable design.
    • by Daniel Phillips (238627) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:45PM (#6380248)
      It's nice that you can see the GPL bits running on their box (Hey running a 2.4.5 kernel) - but it doesn't give you drivers, or scripts, etc.

      The original flash image was decoded (by Andrew Miklas) as a cramfs filesystem. We have *all* the components available in binary form. Unless there is crytographic checking in the bootloader (i.e. a signed flash image) we're all set to go make our own images complete with Linksys's proprietary binaries and our hacked/improved GPL binaries.

      To my knowledge, nobody has done this yet. I hope that doesn't last long. These units will make lovely general-purpose embedded machines if we can put our own code in them. We'd have to rely on Linksys binaries for some of the hardware, but personally I have no ideological problem with that. What I want is to be able to fix some bugs of the bugs and interface stupidities in the darn thing, and to add some of my own functionality, such as being able to ssh into it. Of course, I'd like it even more if Linksys released the full hardware specs, but hey. It's a start.

      Now, I see the kind of hacking I described above, and which I fully intend to get involved in, as nothing but good for Linksys. If it turns out we can reflash the unit as it appears we can, I for one will be in the market for a few more of these.
  • by fishynet (684916) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:51PM (#6379999) Journal
    Can the OSS community now modify the firmware and make custom things for it?
  • by petree (16551) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:51PM (#6380000) Homepage Journal
    Now that all of this has been released, I wonder if we will be seeing alternative firmwares with support for new features (detailed external logging, radius server, wireless VLANs like the cisco APs, traffic shaping, oh, and MeshAP [locustworld.com] could be cool too.) A friend of mine already bought his WRT54G and likes it, but after I found this out (and submitted the story to slashdot) I ordered mine from Amazon [amazon.com]($130 with free shipping) along with the NetGear WAG511 [amazon.com]($85 - 802.11a, 802.11g, 802.11b) as recommended by a Toms Hardware review [tomshardware.com]. I'm so excited that I am going to have a dope 54mbps wireless network in my dorm room for only $215. A little excessive, maybe, but hey I will probably keep this for another 5+ yrs. Especially the 802.11a 802.11g cardbus card. Oh hey, if you are shopping, check out the SeattleWireless Hardware Comparison [seattlewireless.net]. They have all sorts of info there and it made it easier to decide what to buy.
  • by SirDrinksAlot (226001) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:52PM (#6380006) Journal
    Isnt the BEFW11S4 in the same boat as the WRT54G? Isnt it based on linux as well?
  • Ah, Linksys (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:53PM (#6380012)
    They're too lazy to code proper, secure solutions for their products, so they send it to the OSS community to do.

    • Re:Ah, Linksys (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      A company makes hardware, they don't release software & driver code to public.

      People say they are an evil corporation trying to hide their secrets and prevent users of rare operating systems from using their product.

      A company makes hardware, they release software & driver code to public.

      People say they want others to do their coding.

      You just can't win can you?
  • Next stop: Drivers (Score:2, Interesting)

    by InfiniterX (12749)
    Hopefully this means that they'll release drivers for their 54-mbit cards already, then.

    From what I read, they use the same Broadcom chipset as the access points, which means Linux drivers do exist, in spite of their not being released to anyone.
  • Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rkz (667993) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:53PM (#6380015) Homepage Journal
    I was vary suprised that there wasn't a huge uproar when this was coverd on /. earlier.
    If they had not released the source would buy their products again, to be honest I certainly would because they are the cheapest.
    If you would not, does their decision to release the source change your mind?
    • Re:Finally (Score:3, Insightful)

      by noda132 (531521)

      If they had not released the source would buy their products again...

      If they had not released the source, they would be breaking the law. The world is still holding its breath for the first case of the FSF kicking ass in court.

  • by ObviousGuy (578567) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:53PM (#6380016) Homepage Journal
    Are you going to go build your own router?

    Are you going to comb through the code only to find that it's not that much different from the other code you never look at?

    Face it, if it some source is vital to your company staying competitive, it isn't going to be GPL'd.
  • by Erwos (553607)
    Does this give out any cool new code, or is it just simple modifications of the kernel? I'm guessing it's just a few minor changes to enable it to run on the router.

    Hopefully all of this commotion has not dissuaded Linksys from using the Linux kernel (in an appropriate fashion) in their future products.

    -Erwos
  • Its nice to see (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Crashmarik (635988) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:56PM (#6380027)
    It's really great to see a company that saw it had made a mistake, corrected it and moved on. My only wish is that more companies would take that attitude.
  • Cool Beans? (Score:5, Funny)

    by aaron240 (618080) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @07:56PM (#6380029) Homepage
    What is this, 1988?

    Is it also "rad" that the code was released?

    My apologies, I'm on a tear today. Hella has to go the way of "cool beans", but it looks like these things never die. *sighs*
  • by PaulK (85154)
    Now all I need is open source drivers for the 54g PCI and PCMCIA.

    I use one of these access points; my first network nmap after installing it was disconcerting. I had thought that someone was war driving, when I found the 2.4.5 -O.

    The last thing I expected to find was a Linux kernel.

    At least they had the __________ to step up and honor the GPL.

  • Not the full OS (Score:3, Informative)

    by KentoNET (465732) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:01PM (#6380053)
    Linksys only released the GPL pieces of what's running on that router. The way it looks, they haven't really put out anything that would help much to create a customized ROM for that device (web frontend specs, scripts, etc.). This isn't that much of a move for them, as it appears they've only released info of what they used, as well as a centralized location for exactly what GPL software is on their router.
    • Re:Not the full OS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by psyconaut (228947) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:03PM (#6380060)
      Did you really expect them to release proprietary intellectual property?

      They complied with the GPL...they weren't required to do anything else, nor should a commercial enterpise be expected to do more if it doesn't aid their business.

      -psy

      • They complied with the GPL...they weren't required to do anything else, nor should a commercial enterpise be expected to do more if it doesn't aid their business.


        Although, perhaps it would aid their business. It's not like they're in the business of selling hardware at a loss only to make up for it in software sales like the console makers.. Software from third parties only adds to the value of their bricks, and you can bet your ass that their warranty excludes any hacking of the things anyway, so there
        • Re:Not the full OS (Score:3, Insightful)

          by psyconaut (228947)
          I design embedded systems.....and I can tell you that the last thing you want to do is to make it even easier to reverse engineer stuff. Things are bad enough as it is ;-)

          Plus, if people were able to reprogram the unit, I'm not sure how that'd really help the community. You'd probably see a bunch of people doing silly "hacks" with the system and a bunch of confused users not knowing what "distribution" to run on their Linksys access point.

          -psy
          • Re:Not the full OS (Score:3, Insightful)

            by runderwo (609077)

            Plus, if people were able to reprogram the unit, I'm not sure how that'd really help the community. You'd probably see a bunch of people doing silly "hacks" with the system and a bunch of confused users not knowing what "distribution" to run on their [Linksys access point].

            Replace "Linksys access point" with "computer", another term that accurately describes the unit. See the problem? Thing is, people like things they can play with, and other people like those people to play with those things, because inn

            • "How else is Linksys going to distinguish itself from the rest of the Taiwanese crowd?"

              Don't forget that Linksys is an Americancompany...so they're differentiating themselves from the "Taiwanese crowd" not the "rest of the Taiwanese crowd". ;-)

              Also, based on the analog that people like to play with things and the Linksys is an embedded computer system, then you can take that to the Nth degree and start asking Ford to provide you with the ECU firmware for your SUV, or asking LG to provide you with the fi

      • Re:Not the full OS (Score:3, Informative)

        by NetJunkie (56134)
        They don't want you to hack their boxes and add cool features. They want you to buy their next product which will include those features.
        • That argument falls flat because that's not how Linksys is selling their gateways. So far, they have had one model in each category, they have provided updates for it, and they have come out with new models only when a new networking standard has come out.

          And their development group is barely capable of producing a working wireless router as is. If they released the sources, people could fix their bugs and build new, interesting services with it.

          That would mean selling a lot more boxes, instead of what
      • Re:Not the full OS (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cyberformer (257332)
        They don't have to, but it would have been nice!

        Several companies have released (under GPL or otherwise) software that they don't legally have to. Apple (Darwin) is a prominent example.
      • Re:Not the full OS (Score:3, Interesting)

        by kasperd (592156)
        they weren't required to do anything else

        From the GPL: For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.

        Now what I miss is the .config file for their kernel. I'm not sure if that is a requirement from the statement above.
  • by Yonder Way (603108) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:15PM (#6380113)
    With drivers for the 802.11g adapter, more people would look at providing alternative firmwares. I've recently started working on such a project for the Dell TrueMobile 1184 [trilug.org] because Dell actually provided source code when asked, and all the hardware support is there with open source drivers.
  • Good first step, but that's far from the only Linksys device running Linux. Where are the sources for the other devices?
    • Good first step, but that's far from the only Linksys device running Linux. Where are the sources for the other devices?

      Of course you're correct about that. But what's wrong with being nice to them just now. Let's watch them be shocked when sales of the unit tick upward, then let's ask for more, ok? :-)

      Of course, the above depends on being able to reflash the thing successfully, and as far as I can see, that's going to be a whole lot easier than the XBox was, plus more useful, including being useful to
  • More Info (Score:5, Informative)

    by heli0 (659560) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:32PM (#6380183)
    The original post from:
    http://lkml.org/archive/2003/6/7/164/index. html
    is not up right now so here is the text.


    Andrew Miklas
    linux.kernel
    Jun 7 2003

    Hi,

    Sorry for the very lengthly posting, but I want to be as precise as possible in describing this problem.

    Awhile ago, I mentioned that the Linksys WRT54G wireless access point used several GPL projects in its firmware, but did not seem to have any of the source available, or acknowledge the use of the GPLed software. Four weeks ago, I spoke with an employee at Linksys who confirmed that the system did use Linux, and also mentioned that he would work with his management to ensure that the source was released. Unfortunately, my e-mails to this individual over the past three weeks have gone unanswered. Of course, I also tried contacting Linksys through their common public e-mail accounts (pr@linksys.com, mailroom@linksys.com) to no avail.

    However, it is hard for me to know if my contact in the company has just gone on a three week vacation (and not set an auto-responder), or has been asked to not answer anymore mail on this subject. Also, I should note that I don't own this product, so I can't determine if the source is shipped with it. However, I have gone through all the available information on the Linksys website, and can find no reference to the GPL, Linux (as it relates to this product), or the firmware source code. Also, the firmware binary (see below) is freely available from their website. There is no link from the download page to the source, or any mention of Linux or the GPL. Finally, it would be strange if the source was included in the physical package, as my contact at Linksys was initially unaware Linux was used in this product.

    The following steps can be used to determine the exact nature of the possible GPL violation.

    1. Go to the following URL:
    http://www.linksys.com/download/firmware.asp?fwid= 178

    2. Download the "firmware upgrade files":
    ftp://ftp.linksys.com/pub/network/WRT54G_ 1.02.1_US _code.bin
    (MD5SUM: b54475a81bc18462d3754f96c9c7cc0f)

    3. While it is downloading, confirm that there is nothing on the webpage to indicate that this binary contains GPLed software.

    4. Once the download is complete, copy the ontents of the file from offset 0xC0020 onward into a new file.
    dd if=WRT54G_1.02.1_US_code.bin of=test.dump skip=24577c bs=32c

    5. Notice that this file is an image of a CramFS filesystem. Mount it.

    6. Explore the filesystem. You will notice that the system appears to be based on Linux 2.4.5.
    Incidentally, there is at least one other GPLed project in the firmware:
    the BusyBox userland component: (http://www.busybox.net/)

    7. The Linux kernel (I think) is mixed up with a bunch of other stuff in: bin/boot.bin

    You might want to know why I am interested in getting the code for the kernel used in this device.

    There's been some discussion here about Linux's lack of wireless support for a few of the newer 802.11b and (nearly?) all 802.11g chips. Incidentally, Linux has excellent support for at least one manufacturer's wireless family. The following Broadcom chips all appear to be supported under Linux -- if you happen to be running Linux on a MIPS processor in a Linksys router:

    Broadcom BCM4301 Wireless 802.11b Controller
    Broadcom BCM4307 Wireless 802.11b Controller
    Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11a Controller
    Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11b Controller
    Broadcom BCM4309 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller
    Broadcom BCM4310 Wireless 802.11b Controller
    Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11b/g Controller
    Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11a Controller
    Broadcom BCM4306 Wireless 802.11 Multiband Controller

    This list was produced by running strings on:
    lib/modules/2.4.5/kernel/drivers/net/wl/wl.o

    I am trying to determine exactly how tightly coupled these drivers are to t
    • Re:More Info (Score:2, Informative)

      by lazyBob (324923)
      As far as I know, wl.o is made by Broadcomm and is provided as part of Board Support Package (bsp). Linksys may not have its source code too.

      Even if wl.o is binary only, you may still use iwconfig/iwpriv to set wireless parameters.

      I don't agree your opinion that Broadcomm wireless module has to be covered by GPL. How can NVIDIA do binary-only driver but not Broadcomm?
  • In response to another article about 802.1* a couple weeks ago, a lot of people wrote helpful comments about which cards and APs were "best" for single-, dual-, and tri-standard (a,b,g) use, many by people who had experiences with several.

    Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced my bookmark for that article. It'd be great to get a pointer to that discussion or even spark a new discussion here, as I'm finally wanting to buy into the technology, now.

  • Thank them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:41PM (#6380229) Homepage Journal
    If you use there products, shoot them a quick email to say 'thanks'.
    It really is the polite thing to do. Plus it always feels good to be appreciated, and that goes for people who run big companies.
    • What the fuck for? Thanks ... for not ripping off our work? Thanks ... for actually complying with copyright laws? Thanks ... for not contributing your changes back to the projects bolstering your profit margins?

      About the only thing Linksys deserves is being closely watched for future violations (or piracy, to use an industry term).
  • by lurgyman (587233) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:52PM (#6380279)
    Slashdot... where the GNU Public License became a verb ;)
  • GPL paradox. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slobarnuts (666254) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @08:54PM (#6380295) Homepage
    Well, good job for linksys, they released source code they were using. Though they did not contribute anything really to our body of knowledge.

    But it seems like the truth is, linksys did because they wanted to be good citizens. The GPL has never been tested in court. It is easy to comply with the terms of the GPL.

    That said, they may have had the option not to release it. The GPL has small teeth: the only real penalty is forced compliance. Though it could be considered copyright infringe.

    So the question that i see: If linksys did not release the source code, or in anyway comply, what would have happened? Would the coders who wrote the code utilized take legal action? I will not assume the chances of that are.

    But for the point, let's say they did. they sued for (x) million dollars. Companies see that Linksys is being used for (x) million and postpone their implementation of linux because of the remotest fear of being sued for infringement of the GPL. Yes one beauty of linux is that its free and open source, but another is that there isnt a centralized Legal department for linux in charge of IP. Companies do not have to have 50% of their legal dept dedicated to tracking IP. So what happens when a company use GPL code and doesnt comply, or refuses to comply. They have no fear of being sued. Linksys had no fear of being sued. They were doing it to be a decent company. But what is SCOleazy companies come along, use it.

    If they are sued Linux will take a hit in terms of market penetration. If they are left alone, the GPL will take the hit.

    Lets just hope all companies do what linksys did.

  • Still in violation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 06, 2003 @09:01PM (#6380313)
    Vixie cron isn't a pure gpl license as you can read from their own source in the README file:

    #/* Copyright 1988,1990,1993 by Paul Vixie
    # * All rights reserved
    # *
    # * Distribute freely, except: don't remove my name from the source or
    # * documentation (don't take credit for my work), mark your changes (don't
    # * get me blamed for your possible bugs), don't alter or remove this
    # * notice. May be sold if buildable source is provided to buyer. No
    # * warrantee of any kind, express or implied, is included with this
    # * software; use at your own risk, responsibility for damages (if any) to
    # * anyone resulting from the use of this software rests entirely with the
    # * user.
    # *
    # * Send bug reports, bug fixes, enhancements, requests, flames, etc., and
    # * I'll try to keep a version up to date. I can be reached as follows:
    # * Paul Vixie uunet!decwrl!vixie!paul
    # */

    And so it looks like until linksys gives credit properly in the documentation to Paul Vixie they are still in violation of licensing agreements.
    • by muonzoo (106581) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @09:30PM (#6380450) Homepage
      In violation of what ?...
      Paul Vixie's license perhaps? ...
      I don't think so:
      # * Distribute freely, except: don't remove my name from the source or
      # * documentation [1] (don't take credit for my work), mark your changes (don't
      # * get me blamed for your possible bugs)[2], don't alter or remove this
      # * notice.[3] May be sold if buildable source is provided to buyer.[4] No
      1. Safe on this account -- you are reading the license itself, as redistributed
      2. Source appears to be unmodified -- all diffs that I can see are known patches.
      3. There it is, no problem
      4. Again, here's the source, compliant again.
      The license as stated applies to Vixie Cron, not necessarily to the aggregation of parts that is the entire product. IANAL so interpret this with council if it matters to you.
  • by diamond0 (456988) * on Sunday July 06, 2003 @09:02PM (#6380320)
    I see vixie-cron in there, which isn't GPL. Paul Vixie, a former student at Berkeley, uses the BSD license last I knew.

    (He's better known for BIND, MAPS, PAIX, MFNX, etc.)

  • Okay, so now what? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jforman (172134) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @09:07PM (#6380333)
    I have this actual piece of equipment, the WRT54G. Now that I've got this code, what do I do now? I am still unable (as far as i know) to edit this code, and safely reflash my router so i can run snmp off of it, or run snort/acid/etc.

    Great, GPL the code. But now make it useful for me.
    • snort/acid/etc.

      Sorry man that won't work; you snort coke; you have to eat acid. Or at least let it sit on your tongue a while.

    • by ryanr (30917) *
      Wait a while, and I'll bet you'll be able to. Not from Linksys, neccessarily... but from people like me who have taken a sudden interest due to this article.

      Looks like it might be pretty straightforward to unpack the cramfs system, add a tiny .asp file to the www directory, repack, and upload. The .asp file could, say, allow shell commands. I'll let you know when my wrt54g arrives. :)
  • If it contains OSS, it _must_ have been taken from SCO.... ;-) for the humor impaired
  • by Dewars (686073) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @09:12PM (#6380361) Homepage Journal
    From the Linksys code (udhcp/packet.c)
    const char broken_vendors[][8] = {
    "MSFT 98",
    ""
    };
  • Terms of Use? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by femto (459605) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @09:15PM (#6380375) Homepage
    Does anyone find it ironic that Linksys's GPL download page [linksys.com] includes a link to their usual Draconian terms of use [linksys.com]?

    On a different topic, even if Linksys hasn't provided the 'correct' source code, as suggested by some, their acknowledgement of the GPL should at least mean open slather on reverse engineering any binary which has a hint of GPL to it.

  • Calm down, folks. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by leshert (40509) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @09:35PM (#6380477) Homepage
    Having followed this since the original post to the LKML, I have a slightly different viewpoint.

    Linksys got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They probably didn't think twice about using embedded Linux; in fact, they may not have even made the decision themselves.

    When the problem was pointed out to them, they gave several weeks of no conclusive answers, and now they've put up a simple web page with some source tarballs, all or none of which may be what's actually running on the APs. You can't even FIND the page using their support search engine (a search on GPL shows no hits), and they're certainly not announcing it anywhere I've seen.

    It's the least they could do. Approximately.
  • It's good to see that Linksys is complying with the GPL. It's unfortunate that they are not making their platform more compelling by releasing a complete source tree.

    In the end, Linksys APs are just not very good. I have had two, and both of them have had serious bugs. They are now stuck in a closet. Furthermore, their functionality was pretty limited as well.

    So, if you want something hackable or powerful, don't bother with the Linksys APs. You are better off with a Mini-ITX [mini-itx.com] board running Linux or BS
  • Cisco... (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by LucidityZero (602202)
    Why has no one brought up that they are now owned by Cisco? Cisco is normally regarded as a fair and tolerant company, overall. I mean... I know they just purchase anyone that might be competition, but... I've always held Cisco in pretty good light...
  • Not only Linksys... (Score:2, Informative)

    by lobsterturd (620980)
    I know that many more networking equipment manufacturers use GPL'd code in their products. Buffalo's wireless broadband routers use almost the same code as the WRT54G, and earlier Linksys routers used Linux as well.
  • Sweet! (Score:3, Funny)

    by appleLaserWriter (91994) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @11:41PM (#6380990)
    Now SCO can sue Linksys too!
  • by jonwil (467024) on Sunday July 06, 2003 @11:58PM (#6381051)
    The code to whatever custom build of GCC was used to compile the things in the first place...
    • Most of the binaries say:

      GCC: (GNU) 3.0 20010422 (prerelease) with bcm4710a0 modifications

      I don't follow GCC versions that closely. Does that indicate a customized (non-public) version of GCC?

      Any reason to think that a current GCC 3.xx won't work with this target hardware?
  • by svachi (552210) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <ihcavs>> on Monday July 07, 2003 @02:36AM (#6381465) Homepage
    Maybe it's just me, but after reading the term, I visioned a "community" mob treatening to burn Linksys's complex to the ground, Linksys gave in, the mob get what they want, and Linksys swear they won't do anything with the community again.

    IMHO, Linksys just honors the license of the software they used. Maybe they just strayed a bit, but it's not like they are actively trying to violate it. Why don't we put a better positive word to the situation? It will make the "community" sound like a more pleasant entity to interact with when we don't go pressuring people for what we want.

  • by DuckWing (19575) on Monday July 07, 2003 @10:24AM (#6383062)
    Great news that they released GPL'd source for the wireless router, but now what about the real need, code/drivers for their wireless cards like the WPC54G? I searched /. for info on it and found an old Ask Slashdot thread, but nothing has improved yet. I wnat drivers for the wireless card dang it!

  • by CausticWindow (632215) on Monday July 07, 2003 @12:32PM (#6383922)

    with the Barricade I've got from SMC (it's got Linksys firmware).

    The firmware .bin is an arj'ed file, but the only thing of interest in the unpacked file is this string:

    Hey Moe, it dont woik. NYUK NYUK NYUK NYUK *bop* Owww!

    In the WRT54G, one of the first strings is:

    piggy

    Hm

Every successful person has had failures but repeated failure is no guarantee of eventual success.

Working...