[ghaff]

Some subset of the code may be common. A lot of code that is specific to a particular device won't be. I'm actually open to the idea that vendors could benefit from working with open source firmware and differentiate in other ways. But "use open source" doesn't magically reduce the effort. They probably already have core software bases that they don't need to change all that much for new devices.

[zanny]

The thing is that for a new device you only need hardware enablement in the kernel - something largely one off that manufacturers can do in the same cadence as device sales so their priorities align.

What should be happening is that the FCC / international communications bodies should be directly funding a project like OpenWRT and using regulation to compel device manufacturers seeking approval by the bureau to submit their requests contingent to providing device specific hardware enablement upstream and to default-ship their devices with this common OS. Then those certification costs fund the ongoing operating system project.

If a company then wanted to implement a new feature to push their hardware, they could... by submitting it upstream.

There have been so many billions of developer hours wasted in the pursuit of profit by reinventing every single damn wheel a trillion times over its disgusting to think about and governments should be recognizing this flaw in US-IP-driven software business models and work to correct it.

[AdieuToLogic]

> What should be happening is that the FCC / international communications bodies should be directly funding a project like OpenWRT ...

The exact opposite is what actually happened. In late 2016, the FCC specifically banned owner-based firmware upgrades[0]. It was ostensibly due to RF configuration, it could also be seen as a concession to the manufacturers.

0 - https://hackaday.com/2016/02/26/fcc-locks-down-router-firmwa...

[wtallis]

Pretty much the only custom code that router vendors write is the web UI, which is sometimes a fully custom job and sometimes a reskin of DD-WRT or OpenWRT's web interface. Otherwise, they're generally shipping whatever code they got from the SoC vendor, which is generally a fork of OpenWRT from around when that SoC taped out.

"Use open source" would make the situation appreciably better, because it would mean not accepting any closed-source or out of tree drivers that lock you in to particular kernel versions and non-standard management APIs. Once those problems are out of the way, frequently rebasing the web interface on current upstream OpenWRT is pretty straightforward.

[jdnenej]

If they used open source the drivers could be mainlined and then you really could just drop one standard OS on it