From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5BCB3BA8E for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 04:53:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0C91FB1; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:53:27 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1532595207; bh=KD+wLhD+Z3Gf9RyvtEN/Cf3ExSJB17pQsqEJ4vaPZlk=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=x6LotdZ1EngGQmvdVxgWUnk+uhSjoxnTTwwyeeGpmDcgcE6XlOpMYYRmMjURJnkTu kz7sKvn6+Lv9dn2cM776m6k46RX7EAXWOiwGiDkEIRiXjiaMCFNMxWijdEjoKuw431 bdoLpLLJJbzAKq7UjvBLVFDcQEaQyiLazbn/1Bak= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0944FB0; Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:53:27 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 10:53:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Dave Taht cc: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] So how far behind is the embedded router world, still? X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2018 08:53:28 -0000 On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, Dave Taht wrote: > There are still a few companies alive in this space (openrg being one > that I know nothing about), but... There is no single answer to this. Lots of the home routing SoC space is now converging on 4.4, but BCM decided to go for 4.1. They came from 3.2, 3.4 and perhaps 3.10. When I talk to staff at SoC vendors, they seem to live in a world where you take a linux kernel that's announced as LTS (in the best of worlds), work on that for 1-2 years during which you release an SDK, which then the device manufacturers will take and start putting their solutions on, which takes another 1-2 years before it reaches customers. So already there is significant latency. This doesn't mean there are not devices out there today, newly installed, that have really ancient kernels (as you have discovered). This is especially true for cheaper and simpler devices that are very cost optimized. There is movement in the right direction, but revving kernels on older platforms is still hard, as in all of IoT space, due to lack of revenue from older platforms. Main model is still to sell a device and then there is no further income, so no money to continously develop the device. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se