[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
- <!--x-content-type: text/plain -->
- <!--x-date: Fri Feb 6 23:57:07 2004 -->
- <!--x-from-r13: wnzrf ng fhzaref.ngu.pk (Xnzrf Ehzaref) -->
- <!--x-message-id: [email protected] -->
- <!--x-reference: [email protected] -->
- <!--x-reference: m365ekxehm.fsf_-[email protected] -->
- <!--x-reference: [email protected] -->
- <!--x-reference: [email protected] --> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
- <!--x-subject: Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?) -->
- <li><em>date</em>: Fri Feb 6 23:57:07 2004</li>
- <li><em>from</em>: james at sumners.ath.cx (James Sumners)</li>
- <li><em>in-reply-to</em>: <[email protected]></li>
- <li><em>references</em>: <<a href="msg00189.html">[email protected]</a>> <[email protected]> <<a href="msg00217.html">[email protected]</a>> <[email protected]></li>
- <li><em>subject</em>: Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</li>
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:13:28 -0500
Marvin Dickens <marvindickens at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Hello to all,
>
> About a year ago I purchased a Linksys WRT54G wireless router. For those
> not familiar with this appliance, it has quantity-4, 10/100 ethernet
> ports, a cable modem connection and is a wireless access point (For B
> and G). Anyway, about 2 months ago, I decided to install the sveasoft
> firmware (An open source project). The sveasoft firmware is based on the
> original firmware which Linksys released to the public (Because it's
> based on Linux!).
>
> Anyway, FWIW, the functionality of the appliance now blows away any
> other products at it's price point. I now have transmission power adjust
> (28 to 85 Mw, which is well within FCC guide lines), AP and client
> modes, antenna select and a command line interface (Just to name a few
> of the features...).
>
> I've been running the device with this firmware for 2 months and it's
> proven to be more stable and reliable than the original firmware that
> shipped with the unit (The developers at sveasoft cleaned up the
> original code). Anybody who owns one of these appliances should take a
> look at the project:
>
> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.sveasoft.com/modules.php?name=Forums">http://www.sveasoft.com/modules.php?name=Forums</a>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
> Marvin Dickens
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a>
--
I used to be interested in Windows NT, but the more I see of it the more it
looks like traditional Windows with a stabler kernel. I don't find anything
technically interesting there. In my opinion MS is a lot better at making money
than it is at making good operating systems. -- Linus Torvalds
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
</pre>
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<hr>
<ul><li><strong>Follow-Ups</strong>:
<ul>
<li><strong><a name="00229" href="msg00229.html">Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> marvindickens at bellsouth.net (Marvin Dickens)</li></ul></li>
</ul></li></ul>
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<ul><li><strong>References</strong>:
<ul>
<li><strong><a name="00189" href="msg00189.html">[ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> james at sumners.ath.cx (James Sumners)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00209" href="msg00209.html">Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> jknapka at kneuro.net (Joe Knapka)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00217" href="msg00217.html">Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> vernard at cc.gatech.edu (Vernard Martin)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00225" href="msg00225.html">Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> marvindickens at bellsouth.net (Marvin Dickens)</li></ul></li>
</ul></li></ul>
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->
<ul>
<li>Prev by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00225.html">Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00228.html">Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Previous by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00225.html">Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00229.html">Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Index(es):
<ul>
<li><a href="maillist.html#00226"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
<li><a href="threads.html#00226"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
<!--X-User-Footer-->
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
</body>
</html>