[donphillipe]

The way support is structured now, it has caused this software to dwindle down to use by a small group of network professionals, outside of the commercial offering of course. Eliminating the router database for an accurate working build, plus continuing to support a series of wikis that are decades old and contain numerous redirects in most instances make this firmware impossible for all but a very small group of network professionals to even attempt to use any longer. It seems you now have to be "in the club" or you are dismissed as an ignoramus and sent along with a wagging finger.

And no one I know is able to define an aura of superiority to someone who chooses to spend his time trying to help someone when the majority of people here give someone a short answer and tell them to "go look it up" or to "go fish" or whatever. I don't have any need to be superior unless you call someone who tries to help rather than say "go look it up" superior. If taking my time to write up something to worked for me is attempting to act superior, then you have me on that one.

Anyway how do you define superiority? I prefer to define people as how kind the are. Riches and power have no real meaning to me, or they never have. A few kind words and a guiding hand to me are the things that make the world a better place.

[Murrkf]

I do not agree that it is more helpful or kinder to write up information then it is to refer people to information that is already written up, proofread, complete, vetted, and accurate. Getting the information to the point where it is correct in wikis and stickies also takes a lot of time and effort freely given. There are hundreds and more likely thousands of hours put into the peacock announceknt alone. I spent more time on that one post than most have or will spend in all their posts in this forum. Referring people to the accurate information that already exists is far superior to an occasional user telling what they did. I have spent many hours having to undo the harm that others have done with their careless posts based on improper information in the guise of being helpful. I do agree that the more accurate help that we can provide, in any form, the better the forum will be.

I have also seen, over and over and over, where people ask a question, are given an answer and then promptly brick their router because of what they did not ask and did not even know to ask. You can't know what people.are missing. This is why I refer people to not only what they ask about but also what else they need like this: http://www.dd-wrt.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=283797

Give them a fish and they brick their router. Give them access to more so they don't. Ddwrt is complicated with a steep learning curve. There is definitely a price for admission.

[donphillipe]

Converting from a suggested firmware release database to requiring reading extensively through a Peacock thread and all its iterations may have trimmed usage of this software by the greatest number to date. The software is difficult to implement for a novice as it is - when one must understand the underlying technology and create flow charts and matrix's while experimenting with many levels of releases, most people will walk away unless they are hard-line users or network professionals with a lot of free time.

And this says nothing about the greatness of this firmware, because it is phenomenal.

[Murrkf]

A working database only answers one question that users need to know- the peacock answers many. Including answering other issues user's NEED to know to avoid bricking their routers. The peacock may point out the complexity of ddwrt but it does not create this complexity. And there is only one iteration, only part of which is required reading. Unlike a single suspect user giving their answer to a question that is often wrong or incomplete or both, 3.5 million hits equals a lot of proofreading.

There are administrative choices at ddwrt that turn people away, as pointed out in the broadcom forum "its complicated" thread that you also need to read, but having relevant and accurate information available in one place is not one of them. You want there to be simple answers without much effort-that is what stock firmware is for. DD-wrt is what it is; and its not that.

[donphillipe]

It looks like you and I have been using the firmware for about the same length of time. You have chosen to get deeper into it and I have stayed along the lines of a user, focusing on other interests as life passes. I had no problems using dd-wrt as a non-stock firmware user back when the project started and the functions are basically the same today as back then, with a few enhancements of course.

All I see that changed with the Peackock thread and disbanding of the router database is that now I have to jump through hoops and become a developer or network engineer to get the right version loaded without bricking my router (as you say). So I don't agree that people who can't follow a Peacock thread need to just use stock firmware. The router database used to work and work well and there used to be an easy access point that suggested a firmware that was reliable. Today that has all gone to hell.

In years past I used to monitor the router database and replace all my routers firmwares when a new version was recommended. Today I block off 2-3 days and know I am going to have to get my head to the grindstone when an issue comes up to force me to upgrade. And I define that as either me discovering that my knowledge level increases and I want to use a new feature and discover it won't work with the release I have installed or that something comes up like Heartbleed and I have to upgrade my dd-wrt openVPN servers.

Regarding the Peacock thread, I believe that thread is great for people at your skill level who are interested in the internals of the firmware enough to pour through all that data. And just because the thread gets 4 million hits, it would be logical that once the entire user community gets advised that it alone will guide them to using the correct release, that 4 million people might go there to try to find the answer. What it doesn't mean, is that 4 million people were successful at learning the answer and in an amount of time they were willing to spend.

So in short I am saying kudos for the Peacock thread and all the people it serves, but give the people who want to use the suggested firmware level on the router database back their ability to skip the Peakcock thread if they don't want to read through it and follow the matrix. In fact what point is there to spending hours reading about how the firmware works when one only wants to use it in production. If the powers that be won't reinstate the router database, at least put up a survey database per device and hardware level where people can vote and comment if the release works on their device, how well it works and especially if it bricked it or not.

My argument still stands; replacing the suggested firmware level database with a peacock thread suverely limits your user community.

[Murrkf]

A working router database would be an asset. It still exists, but it's build recommendations are not reliable and have NEVER. been. It used to be much WORSE then it is now, recommending builds of sp1 and 13064, which were both awful builds.

I think note 3, which has up to date recommended builds, is not beyond anyone with any basic ability. However people who just grab a build and flash it are on the road to brick city. There is much more one needs to know. People who don't want the steep learning curve can simply follow the wiki install guide for their router and be done.

There is also a recommended build thread in the Broadcom forum, but few people assist and help with that sort of thing, and it hasn't gotten much use.

You need to read that "it's complicated" sticky.

[donphillipe]

It's not complicated in the sense that if there are no recommended builds and no one can say any longer regarding a particular device level what special build should be loaded, then the project is pretty much abandoned and/or dead in my opinion or has been proven by software offerings of the past. If dd-wrt doesn't work any more and it takes days and burned out devices to make a chance determination of what will and will not work, then I suppose it is time to go back to that factory default firmware as you have suggested.

It has taken me weeks of experimentation to determine that DD-WRT v24-sp2 (05/27/14) std - build 24160 works on all the devices I own or manage which have Atheros chips in them and that it provides services I use including those for Open VPN client, Open VPN server, plus combines these with PPPoE protocol to DSL when needed, supports MAC allow, Port forward, Range forward, wifi personal 2, etc. I am sure there is something that is not working in this release but the ability for this suggested release to be found in the router database would have saved me and everyone who comes along behind me from having to play "Peacock thread" and "do not offend the gurus with trivial questions" confusion that present-day is required to determine this information.

[chrisf8657]

I agree with donphillipe.

The support situation is awful - the wiki is outdated, the Router DB is outdated, some things don't work, etc. - it would just be easier to post a page with a download directory and say "figure it out yourself", because that's exactly what DDWRT has become.

Bugs in the firmware take forever to get fixed or ignored entirely.

Unfortunately, the project is seeing its end days AFAIAC...it just barely peters along without much life.

[raqua]

I also agree with donphillipe.

In my opinion, the peacock thread does not solve the problem Murrkf is suggesting it does.
What kind of open source project does not even post that changelog? "Go and figure it from SVN" is not really an option. With a tiny bit of effort, SVN logs could be easily parsed and changelog created automatically.
Router database is also not that hard to maintain. I don't understand how anyone can think that it is better to post "new build" thread in forum and let users write their experience there.
Again, with little effort, the same can be done in router database. Parse the FTP site to get list of routers and then let users post problems/bugs for a particular version and hardware. Bang, you have user-maintained router database that could be in better state than current easily.

It is really a big issue if one has to follow this forum on a daily basis in order to catch some post, where it is stated that upgrading from version X to version Y needs some special command issued, otherwise you have a brick.

[KrypteX]

[raqua]

KrypteX, I am aware of your thread and often refer back to it. I appreciate your effort. However, it is effort and it is not possible to automate it currently, because of how the commits are done. If the commiter actually took the effort to write sensible description in a pre-agreed format, then this could be done.
I have seen this done in multiple projects, so it is perfectly doable.

[KrypteX]