That's great, but they should actually go with that claim of being the first router OpenWRT designed themselves, instead of incorrectly claiming that their router is the first designed specifically for OpenWRT.
I think there's some confusion, but I'll admit that you're not confused about what you want, but you might be about what correctness and/or a reasonable remedy looks like.
TFA is a post, a press release really, by Software Freedom Conservancy, of which the OpenWrt project is a member. That said, the post doesn't have a byline, so we can't really point the finger at anyone. I doubt that the OpenWrt project would even characterize the OpenWrt One in the same manner as does the title of the post in TFA.
That said, the title is largely correct to my reading, as other devices that precede the One, like the Turris Omnia, for instance, aren't designed specifically for OpenWrt, but rather a derivative, Turris OS.
To my knowledge, the OpenWrt One is the first router designed specifically for mainline/stock OpenWrt, which is what it ships with, and any comparable router meeting your definition must also meet these marks.
That rules out every Linksys or GL-iNet router ever sold, because they don't ship with stock OpenWrt, regardless of whether or not they run a derivative out of the box, or whether they may be reflashed to run stock OpenWrt, whereas the OpenWrt One disticntly does.
I will admit I could be mistaken on this point or any other made herein, and will happily admit my mistake if so, but as it sits, the burden of proof is on the accuser, which would be you in this case.
> To my knowledge, the OpenWrt One is the first router designed specifically for mainline/stock OpenWrt
The issue is that there never really was (and arguably still ain't) such a thing as "mainline/stock OpenWrt". From its very conception, OpenWrt has been developed with the expectation that it'd be tailored to specific devices, much like (for example) LineageOS and other custom Android versions are tailored to specific devices. Every device has different flash layouts, different onboard devices (meaning different required drivers and different initial configurations to ensure that the user can access a fresh install at 192.168.1.1 via Ethernet), even different CPU architectures. The closest thing to "mainline/stock OpenWrt" would maybe be builds for generic non-router platforms like QEMU or x86 PCs, but even these are just additional variations on the same "shared base + device-specific customization" development and distribution model. Even the OpenWrt One's builds of OpenWrt are no exception to this; they're still tailored to the specific hardware and quirks of the underlying BananaPi-based hardware, and not some generic "mainline/stock OpenWrt" image.
In light of this:
> That rules out every Linksys or GL-iNet router ever sold, because they don't ship with stock OpenWrt
They don't need to ship with stock OpenWrt to have been designed for OpenWrt, because "stock OpenWrt" ain't really a thing (per above), and because being designed for OpenWrt is a matter of whether or not the manufacturer endorses/supports the user going to openwrt.org and downloading/flashing some actively-maintained image for that particular router - and in the Linksys case at least, that was and is true (and trivially so; you just upload the OpenWrt "factory" image as if it was any other Linksys firmware update - which is unsurprising, since the stock Linksys firmware was itself (allegedly) a customized OpenWrt).
And in light of that:
> as it sits, the burden of proof is on the accuser, which would be you in this case.
That burden of proof has been satisfied, by quoting Linksys' own marketing materials (plus some firsthand corroboration, having ran OpenWrt on the WRT1900AC and WRT3200ACM).
I'll admit I'm being a little pedantic here, but nowhere near as much as one would need to be to insist that the OpenWrt One is literally the "first router designed specifically for OpenWrt" despite there clearly having been numerous preceding routers designed specifically for OpenWrt.
> So if OpenWrt One isn't first, who is?
No idea. I only know that the Linksys WRT line was designed specifically for OpenWrt multiple years before the OpenWrt One existed. Others probably existed before then. That's going by my already-pretty-strict definition of "vendor explicitly advertises OpenWrt compatibility and ships with firmware derived from OpenWrt"; loosening that to one or the other would probably extend that timeline by quite a bit.
Technically you could argue that the ol' reliable WRT54G was the first, in a backwards sort of way: OpenWrt (and DD-WRT, and Tomato, and probably others) descend from the open-source parts of the WRT54G's original Linux-based firmware, after all, and the router was clearly designed to work with that firmware. But that's certainly stretching the meaning of "designed for" quite a bit :)
The difference is the first party development and support. The OpenWrt One is the first device to have it. The One is the first device to be developed to have native support for OpenWrt and in fact run it with no changes. That’s also part of the difference. The other devices are unsupported when running “third party” firmware, which would be OpenWrt is that case.
OpenWrt is saying “this is the first router made for us, by us,” and I agree with them. Nothing you have said above discounts that or changes the truth of that statement.
> The One is the first device to be developed to have native support for OpenWrt and in fact run it with no changes.
Except there's no such thing as "OpenWrt with no changes", because every OpenWrt build for every device is itself modified specifically for that device. The OpenWrt One is no exception; its OpenWrt builds, too, have device-specific settings and drivers, just like any other supported router.
> The other devices are unsupported when running “third party” firmware, which would be OpenWrt is that case.
It's a stretch to call them "unsupported" when the routers in question are specifically advertised as compatible with OpenWrt (if not already outright running OpenWrt).
> OpenWrt is saying “this is the first router made for us, by us,”
Which is still quite different from "this is the first router designed specifically for OpenWrt".
> Except there's no such thing as "OpenWrt with no changes", because every OpenWrt build for every device is itself modified specifically for that device. The OpenWrt One is no exception; its OpenWrt builds, too, have device-specific settings and drivers, just like any other supported router.
There is such a thing as OpenWrt with no changes; that is, first-party OpenWrt builds with no third-party changes.
> It's a stretch to call them "unsupported" when the routers in question are specifically advertised as compatible with OpenWrt (if not already outright running OpenWrt).
Vendors like to advertise compatibility but the fine print will always say that anything but the shipped stock configuration isn't supported under warranty, whereas the OpenWrt One is first-party supported by the vendor to run what the OpenWrt project ships as their official builds of the firmware.
>> OpenWrt is saying “this is the first router made for us, by us,”
> Which is still quite different from "this is the first router designed specifically for OpenWrt".
This is the fist router designed specifically for OpenWrt, as I have elaborated upon above.
> There is such a thing as OpenWrt with no changes; that is, first-party OpenWrt builds with no third-party changes.
An OpenWrt build with no changes is an OpenWrt build that doesn't actually run on any hardware - because it would either lack the drivers and configuration necessary to run on that hardware or else would be far too large to fit on the flash memory of that hardware. The OpenWrt One's OpenWrt build is no exception. And there are plenty of devices already that run "first-party OpenWrt builds with no third-party changes"; any device without any out-of-tree drivers would qualify, and there are many.
> This is the fist router designed specifically for OpenWrt, as I have elaborated upon above.
No it is not, as I have elaborated upon above.
We evidently have very different definitions of that, though, so this is probably the point where we agree to disagree and move on.
> We evidently have very different definitions of that, though, so this is probably the point where we agree to disagree and move on.
The OpenWrt One is the first device designed by the OpenWrt developers to run firmware images that they release. It’s very clear what I mean, but your pedantry prevents you from admitting fault. It’s not consistent with HN guidelines and you should stop or I will notify mods. But you do you.
