Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OnHub

on.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 641 posts

Re: OnHub

#101

Post by jamesblonde »

In the Clommunity project, designed for the world's largest wireless community network (Guifi.net), we have developed a Linux Distro, called cloudy, for these kind of boxes: http://cloudy.community/

We are using the boxes to provide "cloud" services to other users in the Guifi network (30K+ deployments). We currently have 20 rolled out with another 20 coming soon. We're expecting 100+ by the end of next year.

It supports different hardware profiles, but Intel Atom and ARM are quite popular.

Re: OnHub

#102

Post by reilly3000 »

new2 wrote: post #21

Can anyone explain why a Router needs 4GB of storage ? What do they mean by "OnHub has 4GB of storage space, so there’s plenty of room for auto-updates and the latest software features." ? Is software for a router that large ?

Probably more likely to be used for gathering usage data and phoning home. I'm not interested in giving Google access to all of my network activity.

Re: OnHub

#103

Post by exelius »

freehunter wrote: post #85
rattray wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain that? What's QOS, how much CPU does it take to run well, and why don't other expensive routers have the power for fast internet?

QOS is quality of service. It lets you prioritize certain traffic over others. So if I'm running BitTorrent but trying to watch Netflix, I can set up a QOS rule to prioritize Netflix over the BitTorrent. Netflix might only need 4Mbps but a torrent can take 100% of my connection. So I would set a QOS rule to make sure that Netflix gets what it needs then the torrent can have the rest. Inspecting every packet as it run…

Looks like Google is doing the same; that CPU probably isn't fast enough to handle NAT and QoS at the speeds the WiFi radio is capable of; much less a gigabit Google Fiber connection. While I understand consumers aren't going to spend $500 on a router, it's a bit disappointing to see Google engage in the same behavior that Linksys, D-link, et al do.

Re: OnHub

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

adriancooney wrote: post #3

Very interesting. From looking at the specs, it looks like they're packaging a server and marketing it as a router. The configuration app is a very nice touch, routers have always a pain to configure. I'd love to stick this in my apartment (even though I can only receive a maximum of 10mb/s). As a side note, I'm surprised this isn't marketed alongside the Nest branch. It really has the look and feel of Nest products…

> Also surprised this isn't an "Alphabet" product.

Alphabet has been announced, but AFAIK the actual corporate transition hasn't yet occurred.

Re: OnHub

#105

Post by ropiku »

astrocyte wrote: post #24
adriancooney wrote: post #3

Very interesting. From looking at the specs, it looks like they're packaging a server and marketing it as a router. The configuration app is a very nice touch, routers have always a pain to configure. I'd love to stick this in my apartment (even though I can only receive a maximum of 10mb/s). As a side note, I'm surprised this isn't marketed alongside the Nest branch. It really has the look and feel of Nest products…

"As a side note, I'm surprised this isn't marketed alongside the Nest branch. It really has the look and feel of Nest products with the LEDs and the speaker aesthetic. Also surprised this isn't an "Alphabet" product." It pretty much is... it's their way of sneaking the 'home automation' core/aggregation box into people's homes masked as a wireless router (for now). I'm sure the capability you mention will come headin…

Given that it has ZigBee, Bluetooth 4.0 I think it's meant to be a hub. It also mentions Weave which would work well together with Nest: https://nest.com/support/article/How-does-Nest-Protect-conne...

Re: OnHub

#106

Post by dragonwriter »

chrisrhoden wrote: post #58
twoodfin wrote: post #10

Hard to believe there's a huge market for $199 WiFi routers, no matter how sophisticated. On the other hand, even a sprinkling of installations is probably pretty valuable if it allows Google to derive more accurate ISP performance numbers. There's got to be some benefit in having thousands of devices directly connected to the ISP's network on the consumer end 24/7.

If you're not spending at least $100 on a wireless router, you're probably giving up significant amounts of the performance you're paying for from your ISP. Routers are computers. The $40 units just can't handle modern usage patterns (multiple phones / tablets / computers with relatively high speed caps) very well. It's my single biggest recommendation when people complain about the speed of the Internet in their hom…

> More often than not, they're underspending on their networking equipment, not their ISP package.

Often, their networking equipment is part of the ISP package because the ISP wants to provide a seamless experience, and doesn't even provide easy access to the information necessary to use your own equipment.

Re: OnHub

#107

Post by jshc »

christop wrote: post #28

The only privacy link I could find on the page was Google's generic privacy policy. Is there more information somewhere? With its "advanced and always-evolving security features", I'm wondering whether and what information Google would be gathering about my local network and my network traffic.

still remember the day Google collected public WiFi data ...now they have your WiFi covered ;)

Re: OnHub

#108

Post by thrownaway2424 »

daveloyall wrote: post #75

You can almost hear the TLA's grunt of relief. Maybe they won't 'go dark' after all. I mean, hell, even if the consumer monitors the thing, a constant X mbps stream of strongly encrypted traffic to Google is normal . What do we do? Demand that the device must give us (per-device) keys for the purposes of audit? Somebody will argue that that would open an attack vector... @EFF, what do we do?

I know, let's all act like retards on the Internet.

Re: OnHub

#109

Post by legacy2013 »

mihok wrote: post #99
adriancooney wrote: post #3

Very interesting. From looking at the specs, it looks like they're packaging a server and marketing it as a router. The configuration app is a very nice touch, routers have always a pain to configure. I'd love to stick this in my apartment (even though I can only receive a maximum of 10mb/s). As a side note, I'm surprised this isn't marketed alongside the Nest branch. It really has the look and feel of Nest products…

What specs are you talking about specifically? It doesn't look like a server at all.

https://on.google.com/hub/#specs

The detailed specs page shows a 1.4 GHz Dual Core processor and a 1GB of DDR3 RAM. Thats a little ridiculous for a router

Post reply on HN