openwrt

Pros of lede

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Larger community support and user base
• Broader range of supported devices and hardware

Cons of lede

• May have more experimental features, potentially less stable
• Larger codebase, which can be more complex to navigate and maintain

Code Comparison

lede:

#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/version.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/types.h>
#include <linux/kdev_t.h>

openwrt:

#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
#include <linux/kernel.h>
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/uaccess.h>

Both repositories are forks of the OpenWrt project, focusing on customizing and enhancing the original firmware. lede tends to have more frequent updates and a larger community, which can lead to faster development and broader device support. However, this may also result in a more complex codebase and potentially less stable experimental features.

openwrt, maintained by Lienol, may offer a more conservative approach with potentially fewer bleeding-edge features but possibly increased stability. The code comparison shows similar structure in both projects, with minor differences in included headers, reflecting their common OpenWrt heritage.

Ultimately, the choice between these repositories depends on the user's specific needs, preferred device support, and desired balance between cutting-edge features and stability.

Pros of immortalwrt

• More active development with frequent updates and commits
• Broader device support, including newer and more diverse hardware
• Enhanced performance optimizations for modern networking equipment

Cons of immortalwrt

• Potentially less stable due to rapid development cycle
• May have a steeper learning curve for newcomers due to additional features
• Larger codebase and image size, which could impact resource-constrained devices

Code Comparison

immortalwrt:

-- Enhanced Wi-Fi configuration
config wifi-device 'radio0'
    option type 'mac80211'
    option channel 'auto'
    option band '2g'
    option htmode 'HT40'
    option country 'US'

openwrt:

-- Basic Wi-Fi configuration
config wifi-device 'radio0'
    option type 'mac80211'
    option channel 'auto'
    option hwmode '11g'

The immortalwrt code snippet shows more advanced Wi-Fi configuration options, including band selection and country code, which may provide better performance and compliance with local regulations. The openwrt code is simpler but offers less fine-tuning for Wi-Fi settings.

Pros of OpenWrt

• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Wider range of supported devices and architectures
• More comprehensive documentation and user guides

Cons of OpenWrt

• May lack some specialized features found in Lienol's fork
• Potentially slower to incorporate certain experimental features
• Less focus on specific regional adaptations (e.g., for Chinese users)

Code Comparison

OpenWrt:

static int wpa_driver_nl80211_set_key(void *priv, struct wpa_driver_set_key_params *params)
{
    struct i802_bss *bss = priv;
    struct wpa_driver_nl80211_data *drv = bss->drv;
    int ifindex = if_nametoindex(bss->ifname);
    struct nl_msg *msg;
    int ret = -1;

Lienol's OpenWrt:

static int wpa_driver_nl80211_set_key(void *priv, struct wpa_driver_set_key_params *params)
{
    struct i802_bss *bss = priv;
    struct wpa_driver_nl80211_data *drv = bss->drv;
    int ifindex = if_nametoindex(bss->ifname);
    struct nl_msg *msg;
    int ret = -1;

Note: The code snippets shown are identical in this comparison, as both projects are based on the same core OpenWrt codebase. Differences may be more apparent in specific feature implementations or customizations.

Pros of helloworld

• Focused specifically on providing proxy and VPN solutions for OpenWrt
• More frequent updates and active development
• Smaller codebase, potentially easier to understand and contribute to

Cons of helloworld

• Limited scope compared to the full OpenWrt ecosystem
• May require additional configuration or packages for a complete setup
• Less comprehensive documentation and community support

Code Comparison

helloworld:

local proxy_port = 1080
local redir_port = 7892
local http_port = 1081
local dns_port = 5353

openwrt:

local sys = require "luci.sys"
local uci = require "luci.model.uci".cursor()
local m, s, o

m = Map("network", translate("Network"))
s = m:section(TypedSection, "interface", translate("Interfaces"))

Summary

helloworld is a specialized project focusing on proxy and VPN solutions for OpenWrt, offering frequent updates and a more focused codebase. However, it has a limited scope compared to the full openwrt project, which provides a complete router operating system. openwrt offers a more comprehensive solution but may be more complex to navigate and contribute to due to its larger scope.

Pros of openwrt-packages

• More focused on package management and updates
• Larger collection of pre-compiled packages
• Frequent updates to keep packages current

Cons of openwrt-packages

• Less comprehensive system-level customization options
• May require additional configuration for full system integration
• Potentially less stable due to frequent package updates

Code Comparison

openwrt:

./scripts/feeds update -a
./scripts/feeds install -a
make menuconfig
make -j$(nproc) V=s

openwrt-packages:

git clone https://github.com/kenzok8/openwrt-packages
cd openwrt-packages
./scripts/feeds update -a
./scripts/feeds install -a

The openwrt repository provides a complete OpenWrt build system, allowing for full customization and compilation of the entire firmware. In contrast, openwrt-packages focuses on providing a collection of pre-compiled packages that can be easily integrated into existing OpenWrt systems.

openwrt offers more control over the entire system build process, making it suitable for users who want to customize their firmware from the ground up. openwrt-packages, on the other hand, is ideal for users who want to quickly add or update specific packages without rebuilding the entire system.

While openwrt-packages offers a wider range of readily available packages, it may require additional steps to integrate them fully into a custom OpenWrt build. Users should consider their specific needs and technical expertise when choosing between these repositories.

Pros of luci-theme-argon

• Focused solely on providing a modern, sleek theme for OpenWrt's LuCI interface
• Offers a responsive design with both light and dark modes
• Regularly updated with new features and improvements

Cons of luci-theme-argon

• Limited in scope compared to openwrt, which is a full firmware distribution
• Requires an existing OpenWrt installation to be useful
• May not be compatible with all OpenWrt versions or custom builds

Code Comparison

luci-theme-argon (CSS snippet):

.login-page .login-container .login-form {
    background-color: var(--form-bg-color);
    border-radius: 6px;
    padding: 30px;
    width: 300px;
    margin: 0 auto;
}

openwrt (Makefile snippet):

define Package/base-files
  SECTION:=base
  CATEGORY:=Base system
  DEPENDS:=+netifd +libc +procd +jsonfilter +NAND_SUPPORT:ubi-utils +fstools +fwtool
  TITLE:=Base filesystem for OpenWrt
  URL:=http://openwrt.org/
  VERSION:=$(PKG_RELEASE)-$(REVISION)
endef

The code comparison shows that luci-theme-argon focuses on styling and user interface elements, while openwrt deals with system-level package definitions and configurations.