openwrt

Pros of LEDE

• More frequent updates and active development
• Includes additional packages and features not found in OpenWrt
• Optimized for Chinese users with region-specific improvements

Cons of LEDE

• Less stable than OpenWrt due to rapid development cycle
• May have compatibility issues with some hardware due to modifications
• Documentation primarily in Chinese, which can be challenging for non-Chinese users

Code Comparison

OpenWrt:

static int default_preinit(void)
{
    do_sysinfo();
    sysinit();
    return 0;
}

LEDE:

static int default_preinit(void)
{
    do_sysinfo();
    sysinit();
    set_lede_specific_options();
    return 0;
}

The LEDE code includes an additional function call set_lede_specific_options(), which likely configures LEDE-specific features not present in the original OpenWrt codebase.

Both projects are based on the same core, but LEDE offers more frequent updates and additional features, particularly for Chinese users. However, this comes at the cost of potentially reduced stability and compatibility. OpenWrt remains the more conservative and widely supported option, while LEDE caters to users seeking cutting-edge features and optimizations.

Pros of ImmortalWrt

• More frequent updates and active development
• Includes additional packages and features not found in OpenWrt
• Better support for some specific hardware platforms

Cons of ImmortalWrt

• Potentially less stable due to rapid development cycle
• Smaller community and less documentation compared to OpenWrt
• May have compatibility issues with some OpenWrt packages

Code Comparison

OpenWrt:

config interface 'loopback'
    option ifname 'lo'
    option proto 'static'
    option ipaddr '127.0.0.1'
    option netmask '255.0.0.0'

ImmortalWrt:

config interface 'loopback'
    option device 'lo'
    option proto 'static'
    option ipaddr '127.0.0.1'
    option netmask '255.0.0.0'

The main difference in this example is the use of 'device' instead of 'ifname' in ImmortalWrt, reflecting a change in network configuration syntax.

Both projects are open-source firmware based on the Linux kernel for embedded devices. ImmortalWrt is a fork of OpenWrt, aiming to provide more features and frequent updates. While ImmortalWrt may offer some advantages in terms of new features and hardware support, OpenWrt generally provides a more stable and well-documented experience with broader community support.

Pros of nanopi-openwrt

• Specifically optimized for NanoPi devices, potentially offering better performance
• May include custom patches and features tailored for NanoPi hardware
• Likely to have a more focused and streamlined codebase for NanoPi devices

Cons of nanopi-openwrt

• Smaller community and potentially less frequent updates compared to the main OpenWrt project
• May lack support for a wider range of devices and features available in the main OpenWrt repository
• Could have compatibility issues with some packages or extensions designed for standard OpenWrt

Code Comparison

While a detailed code comparison would require in-depth analysis, here's a hypothetical example of how device-specific optimizations might differ:

nanopi-openwrt:

#ifdef CONFIG_TARGET_nanopi
    #define NANOPI_SPECIFIC_FEATURE 1
    // NanoPi-specific optimizations
#endif

openwrt:

#ifdef CONFIG_TARGET_generic
    // Generic device configurations
#endif

The nanopi-openwrt repository likely contains more NanoPi-specific configurations and optimizations, while the main OpenWrt repository maintains a broader, more generic approach to support a wide range of devices.

Pros of helloworld

• Focused on providing specific network tools and proxy solutions
• Regularly updated with new features and improvements
• Easier to integrate into existing OpenWrt setups for advanced users

Cons of helloworld

• Limited scope compared to the full OpenWrt ecosystem
• May require more manual configuration and troubleshooting
• Less comprehensive documentation and community support

Code Comparison

helloworld:

local shadowsocksr = "shadowsocksr"
local sid = arg[1]
local uuid = luci.sys.exec("cat /proc/sys/kernel/random/uuid")

OpenWrt:

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>

The code snippets highlight the different focus areas of the two projects. helloworld's code is more specific to network proxy configurations, while OpenWrt's code demonstrates its broader system-level functionality.

helloworld is a collection of network tools and proxy solutions that can be integrated into OpenWrt systems. It offers specialized features for users who need advanced networking capabilities. However, it has a narrower focus compared to the full OpenWrt project, which provides a complete Linux-based operating system for embedded devices.

OpenWrt offers a more comprehensive solution with wider hardware support, extensive documentation, and a larger community. It's suitable for a broader range of use cases but may require more resources to set up and maintain for specific networking needs.