Not only are they violating the GPL, but they've been doing it for over 4 years? Thanks for the links, this resets my opinion on Ubiquity.

Doesn't violating the GPL (for v2) or ignoring a notice that they violate the GPL for 30 days (for v3) result in permanent loss of the rights to use the software?

Wouldn't at this point a copyright holder (e.g. anyone who contributed to the kernel) + a donation campaign for legal costs be able to force them to either fix it within 30 days, or (once the legal process is over) to indefinitely maintain a patched version of the kernel removing that copyright holder's code?

They also sue their own customers for using custom firmware

https://www.mtin.net/blog/ubnt-vs-cambium/

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7616021/ubiquiti-networ...

I was considering going all in on Ubiquiti gear for my next move, but this along with their GPL violations changed my mind. Thanks for pointing this out.

I was aware of Ubiquity’s past GPL violations and it was the only reason I avoided them. According to Wikipedia they settled a GPL violation in 2017 but I wasn’t aware of the recent issue. Looks like their Wikipedia page could use an update.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquiti_Networks

One can draw from this that the GPL is quite toothless. If even the biggest most important GPL'd software in history can't or won't defend itself, then why should anyone care about the GPL?

Or one can draw that looking at a single violation on a single piece of software is a poor way to come to a conclusion for every violation on every piece of software.

D-Link comes to mind as a similar situation where GPL prevailed. Perhaps in this case nobody cares enough, either way doesn't mean GPL is useless and nobody should care about it.

As with all licenses if the people that hold them do not enforce them than all licenses are Toothless

the Linux Foundation has been notoriously anti-litigation, their corporate masters do not want any litigation at all, and more or less treat Linux as if it was BSD licensed instead of GPL

Damn, I like their gear; who's the next best?

Maybe pfSense/openwrt based on APU2[0] platform? I don't personally anybody who has used it. If on HN there is someone who would like to share his opinion about it, I'd be grateful.

Edit: Also, Turris MOX or Turris Omnia [1] might be an alternative.

[0]: https://pcengines.ch/apu2.htm

[1]: https://www.turris.cz/en/

I've been using the APU2 platform for a home network router and can strongly recommend it. I especially like the open source firmware (coreboot) with frequent, signed releases. Wireless performance on OpenBSD was lackluster, so I'm back to running Debian for 802.11. Performance is strong even at full WAN bandwidth capacity of 400 Mbps.

I’m running an APU2C4 for my router, no wireless. It has pfSense running with OpenVPN and a DNS sinkhole for ads. My wireless is through an UAP AC Pro.

The APU works fine but after upgrading to a gigabit connection I’m a bit disappointed. It won’t saturate the connection on a single thread. (Yes over Ethernet) Maybe 400 Mbps max. Apparently it has something to do with pfSense not multithreading connections and the single cores of the CPU not being fast enough on their own. I can run 1 Gbps over multiple connections though so I suppose it mostly fulfills it’s purpose. I also want a WireGuard server but I might end up just deploying that in a VM. pfSense doesn’t currently have that option.

When I learned of these limitations I gave some consideration to the the Ubiquiti USG but found it isn’t exactly super beefy either and requires turning features off to get 1 Gbps. I’m debating building something similar to the ArsTechnica guide [0].

Overall, I’ve been satisfied with my setup and in particular the UAPs. I’ve deployed multiple UAPs and Edgerouter X’s at friends and family’s houses and have had essentially 0 support requests. The stuff just works and performs. I just had a party last night and even with 20+ clients, streaming music and YouTube TV for football, I had zero complaints or hiccups. All on a single UAP. I haven’t used any recent consumer gear but I know e consumer gear I used to buy would have definitely been choking on that kind of load.

I’m pretty disappointed to see this turn in events with UBNT. I’ve kinda seen it coming for awhile now since they’ve been moving towards these cloud services but I was really hoping they would resist the lures of Surveillance Capitalism.

[0] https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/04/the-ars-guide-to-bui...

Based on information I've found in article [0] pfSense had problems with reaching 1 Gbps but it seems disabling hardware offloading significantly increases throughput [1] (940 Mbps).

[0]: https://teklager.se/en/knowledge-base/apu2c0-ipfire-throughp...

[1]: https://teklager.se/en/knowledge-base/apu2-1-gigabit-through...

I also experienced the gigabit performance issue (Debian 9 and 10, APU4C4); estimate a bandwidth cap of about 400 Mbps, too. I don't actually have a need to exceed that speed on my home network, so I'm still happy. But also curious if anyone has built a beefier, more capable open source hardware router that also isn't a power hog.

There are also TLSense routers[0], which include configurations with Intels i5 [1] or i7. They also claim 7-15W power usage, AES-NI support, microphone/headphones jacks, HDMI, RS-232 and room enough for 16GB of RAM, which is quite unusual in routers.

[0]: https://teklager.se/en/products/routers/

[1]: https://teklager.se/en/products/routers/tlsense-i5-4lan

Edit: I noticed those thanks to link on PCEngines site, which is quite also amazing, knowing a fact TekLager and PCEngines are direct competitors.

Mikrotik is pretty nice although the gui is not user friendly as ubiquiti.

I'm sorry, but asking someone to switch from Ubiquiti to a Mikrotik is like asking someone to go from macOS to 1990's Linux.

The user interface is beyond atrocious and even basic features you'd need in smaller/home setup need digging through Wikis to get the arcane settings you need to click. Basic things like NAT loopback or basic VPN setup. OpenVPN is still neutered and broken.

What's even worse - the defaults are all wrong. There's no simple "enable firewall" switch for basic use-cases like other equipment has. Instead you need to manually configure firewall rules in chains like working with raw IP tables and if you do a small misstep, you'll drill a hole in your network easily. Or make your internet horribly slow because you need to be careful about fasstrack rules and lack of NAT acceleration.

It's really about the most disappointing piece of hardware I bought in last few years and doesn't come close to niceness of Ubiquitis management. Sadly it's also the only company that makes a compact router with SFP and PoE+ to power Ubiquities.

While I'm a big Mikrotik advocate, I completely agree with you: Mikrotik is not even in the same league as Ubiquity when it comes to UX. Mikrotik is for professionals who desire control and know what they're doing, Ubiquity is for a non-technical prosumer audience.

One could argue that Mikrotik provides a UX that it’s target market is looking for.

Yes, but that also means they're not a replacement for Ubiquiti then and shouldn't be peddled as such.

Uniqiti has several product ranges; the EdgeMax line is the advanced one; Unifi is the simple one.

Yes, you can set up simple things with Unifi in a simple way, but the more advanced ones are a tragedy, that you must also google around, dig wikies and forums for arcane incantations of the right json keys, so you can deploy your config in json, there are even no arcane settings to click.

I don't think the EdgeMax is the 'advanced' line by any stretch. They both run a fork of Vayatta and share a CLI. The Unifi stuff has more features accessible via the GUI and receives far more attention from Ubiquity.

However, the biggest and most major difference between the two lines of products is the requirement of the Controller to run the Unifi line of devices. For that simple fact I would pin the Unifi line as more 'advanced'.

The controller and the sdn concept is exactly the difference.

They might share CLI, but that does not mean that your changes persist on USG. You can rely only on whatever you configured in GUI and half-rely on gateway.config.json; for example, they both have dnsmasq and I'm still figuring out how to configure it, so the changes persist. It would be otherwise trivial on edgemax or other pure dnsmasq-using system, like openwrt.

RouterOS is basically designed for network engineers. From our perspective, NAT loopback is extremely complex and has many implications, which RouterOS doesn't hide from you. And we typically don't run a VPN concentrator on the same device as a router. I think it's just a matter of different practices in different industries.

ETA:

> What's even worse - the defaults are all wrong.

There is a new-ish thing in the web UI called "QuickSet" for these use cases.

I agree. Mikrotik has great devices but they are great if you can cope with them. Imagine as getting Cisco Catalyst and then complaining it is not as good as Ubiquiti due to the sheer number of options. It just doesnt work that way, there is equipment for the masses which is "good enough" and the other side where you can tacle everything in transmission but you need to know what you are doing.

Anyway, I wouldnt recomend ubiquiti as replacement for microtik. It is just too complex for most home users and even technical users (on the other side I wouldnt use ubiquity even if it is a giveaway).

Honest question. What is the market for Mikrotik? I’ve only seen them in use at home by enthusiasts and a few SMBs trying to maximize bang for buck. There offerings just don’t seem very enterprisy.

Having had the displeasure of managing a network for a company that installed about 40 mikrotik switches behind a mikrotik firewall, I can safely say they belong in a small business with max 1 or 2 at a time.

Managing more than that is crazy with the current software. Not to mention these are some of the cheapest and lowest build quality switches you will find with these insanely powerful features.

Unifi switches are a materially better build quality.

If you want great carrier grade look at Arista. You can even score a 10Gbit 48 port Arista switch off eBay used for about $700 last I checked.

Quite popular in the WISP market

Lower tier ISPs.

Yes, I fully understand that it was built for company admins to have fun and cover their use-cases.

But unfortunately I constantly see those admins recommend them for prosumer, unmanaged small business and home use-cases. In those cases they're horrible to manage and lack features users expect.

What features? I have heard a lot of complaining over mikrotik, but lack of features was typically not one of them.

An easy to use, user friendly WebUI is a feature. The only part of that MikroTik has is WebFig, which is neither easy to use nor user friendly.

Everyone uses either CLI or WinBox GUI app, which is excellent. https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Winbox#Work_Area_and_c...

Which is covered by

>horrible to manage and lack features users expect

Users expect WebUIs, and WebFig is horrible to manage.

Users expected faster horses, got cars. WinBox is so much better than any web UI I've ever seen, didn't know I wanted it before I had it.

1. WinBox only works on Windows. 2. Android version of WinBox is buggy and also only works on Android 3. It may be better if you have expertise in network administration and know RouterOS inside and out. Most people who buy Ubiquiti gear do not, but their needs aren't met by regular consumer routers which do not allow any kind of "prosumer" settings.

MikroTik may well be better for you (I used it for 5km PTP links, but that's because it's cheap, if I had the budget I would've gotten LiteBeam or AirGrid), but that doesn't imply it's a suitable replacement for everyone. And it is most certainly not a suitable replacement of airOS for most people who use airOS.

It’s probably the wrong product for you. I like my Mikrotik devices as it doesn’t hide anything and is crazy configurable for the price.

I run my VPN server on a different device, I can understand why you might want to run it in your router, but again this isn’t plug and play trivial networking gear and most administrators will be doing the same as me.

There are many companies selling what you want.

> I run my VPN server on a different device, I can understand why you might want to run it in your router, but again this isn’t plug and play trivial networking gear and most administrators will be doing the same as me.

Which administrators? In what environments? Remember, the thread started with someone telling us that Mikrotik is a good replacement for Ubiquiti use-cases. Whose EdgeRouters and USGs have easily configurable VPNs with good defaults.

I'd also love to hear about any alternative products which support SFP for WAN and 802.3at PoE with ease of setup and use as Ubiquiti. Or even a SOHO ASUS router.

not even close that user friendly, and they had pretty serious security problems, i also use them, because they are powerful and cheap.

https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-14847

Just want to point out that the fact that there are CVEs does not mean they are insecure.

All kit has security issues but the important thing is how open the manufacturer is about the issues and how quickly they fix them, and Mikrotik have always been very good in this area, regularly releasing updates

Also, as all their devices run the same software, even devices that are years old will still be updated

I often see people saying “Mikrotik is insecure” but this seems to be based solely on the fact that there are published security issues which they have patched. In my opinion that is the opposite of insecure

Agree on the user friendliness though - I use them at home for personal stuff, but for work it is Unifi

the one linked is especially bad, i allows anybody to read the admin password. the problem is also that a lot of them are running old versions because the update process is not as straightforward as ubiquitu for example. i also run mikrotik at home and have deployed mikrotik and ubiquiti at out different offices. for the price you can hardly beat mikrotik and once you "get into it" it's fairly simple.

Yes, that’s bad but note that even unpatched it is only an issue if the GUI management port has been left open - which seems to be the case with all the security issues people highlight with Mikrotik

I wouldn’t disagree that management ports should probably be locked down out of the box but I would expect anyone reading this to apply some basic lockdown when setting up any device

I just want to offer a counterpoint to an assertion that I often see here claiming they are insecure which I don’t think is justified

Certainly if you are not into networking and want something that just works then Unifi is great, but if you want something with bucketloads more functionality and don’t mind getting your hands dirty then don’t be put off Mikrotik due to security concerns

> the one linked is especially bad, i allows anybody to read the admin password.

Only if you have exposed management port to the internet, which you should never do.

You just upload a file and reboot... that seems like a pretty simple procedure to me...?

There's also the automatic upgrade option, so you don't have to upload anything manually: https://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:Upgrading_RouterOS#Aut...

Yes, and IMO its less likely to "ruin" the device (i.e. reset all settings on a roof-mounted CPE that you are upgrading remotely) than Unifi updates for LiteBeam... Though I have only used MikroTik SXT and SXTsq and Ubiquiti LiteBeam M5 so I am not the best to judge.

Disabling (access to) WinBox should be the first thing to do on a Mikrotik. Most of their serious security issues are in WinBox.

The Web UI seems to be a perfect equivalent if you want a GUI to manage your one box at home, and SSH should do the trick for automation. Is there any reason to use their proprietary (Windows-only) software to configure the router?

WebFig is just clunky and slow. Winbox is so much better, faster, with MDI, and works fine on Wine.

This one was for management port and was fixed before the CVE came out. There are two points: opening management interface to the internet is... Lets say... Weird. The second one, they are extremely responsive to security issues.

I have used Mikrotik at work and have been alarmed at how often professional network engineers make mistakes with them. I found some serious errors through testing (and some exploitation), and when putting them right I could see why the engineers had made that mistake. I caution against them. They don't just have a clunky gui they have a model of the network that people seem to find hard to understand. Shame on Unifi over GPL, but their kit is very good

Dealing with this exactly at this moment. Using Winbox is like using Windows 3.0.

No no... It's way worse than that.

Their last source dump appears to be 4yo too.

The next beast is OpenWRT + any modern hardware supported by it.

> Damn, I like their gear; who's the next best?

Linux / OpenBSD with open source wifi drivers, if that is even a thing. Snatch some Atheros or Realtek chips before they disappear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open-source_wire...

If all you're looking to do is avoid Ubiquiti breaking GPL not necessarily binary blobs/100% open I'd recommend just using the Intel AX200. It's 20 bucks, will have longer support, supports AX, and supports more features/extensions on older versions of Wi-Fi than e.g. their AC chip does to boot.

Can't the FSF do something? They're quite big.

Only if they hold copyright.

Isn't the copyright holder in this case "anyone who has contributed to the Linux kernel"? I have to imagine that includes the FSF.

Anyway, one of the GGP's (great grandparent's) links indicate the software freedom conservatory did open a lawsuit just last month. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2019/oct/02/cambium-ubiquiti-...

Link actually says, "As such, we have today opened (at this point, non-litigation) GPL enforcement actions against both companies."

that's a letter, not a lawsuit. not yet, anyway.

Oops, apparently I wasn't reading carefully enough! Thank you!